^ 


PRINCETON,    N.    J.  S 


Shelf.. 


Division . 

•Sec/ion... ..K(Z.-^,S>.f^. 

Number C  .?.  .fe.V..*? 


THE 


NEW  TESTAMENT  SCRIPTURES 


THEIR    CLAIMS,    HISTORY,    AND   AUTHORITY. 


BEING 

E\^t  Croall  ILccturi^s  for  1882, 


BY 


A.  H/CHARTEEIS,  D.D, 

PROFESSOR  OF  BIBLICAL  CRITICISM  AND  BIBLICAL  ANTIQUITIES  IN  THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  EDINBURGH,  AND  ONE  OF  HER  MAJESTY'S  CHAPLAINS. 

AUTHOR  OF  '  CANONICITY,  BASED  ON  KIBCHHOFER'S  QUELLENSAMMLUNG,    ETC. 


NEW  YORK: 

ROBERT  CARTER  &  BROTHERS, 

No.    5  30   BROADWAY. 

188  2. 


MORRISON  AND  GIBB    EDINBURGH 
PRINTERS  TO  HER  MAJESTY'S  STATIONERY  OmCE 


PREFACE. 


The  following  Lectures  are  printed  as  they'  were 
delivered.     They  are  an  attempt  to  answer  ques- 
tions which  are  often  put  as  to  the  claims  of  the 
Christian    Scriptures    on   the    Christian    believer's 
acceptance.      1  have  endeavoured  to  divest  the  sub- 
ject of  technicality,  and  to  Avrite  for  those  Avho  are 
unable  or  w^ho  have  not  leisure  to  study  the  copious 
literature  of  the  subject.     The  references  to  books 
are  almost  all  to  such  as  are  easily  accessible.     In 
treating  of  the  early  witnesses  to  the   claims  and 
the  authority  of  the  books  of  the  Ncav  Testament, 
I  have  necessarily  made  statements  without  being- 
able  to  adduce  the  evidence  in  detail.     Instead  of 
defending  or  illustrating  such  general  statements  in 
Notes  at  the  end  of  the  volume,  as  is  usually  done 
in  published  lectures,  I  have  ventured  in  footnotes 
to  refer  to  the  evidence  which  I  have  already  com- 
piled for  students  in    a  recently  published  work, 
entitled    Canonicity.      In   so    far   as    concerns    the 
history  of  the  New  Testament  Canon,  these  Lectures 
may  serve  as  a  popular  guide  to  the  results  of  an 
examination  of  the    testimonies   arranged   in    that 
book.     Many  friends  and  critics  have  suggested  the 
preparation  of  such  a  guide,  and  I  shall  be  glad  if 
this  meet  their  wishes. 


^ 


DATES  OF  SOME  OF  THE  PRINCIPAL  WRITERS  AND 
WRITINGS  NOTICED. 


Septuagint  Version  of  OIJ  Testament,  Third  Century 

Josephus,  A.D.  37-100, 

Philo,  B.C.  27-A.D.  40, 

Clement  of  Rome,  c.  a.d.  90-100, 

Clement's  Second  Epistle,  c.  a.d.  120-140. 

Barnabas,  c.  a.d.  119  or  120, 

Hermas,  c.  a.d,  142, 

Polycarp,  c.  a.d.  140-155  (IGG?), 

Ignatius,  c.  a.d.  107  or  115, 

Papias,/.  a.d.  70-150, 

Basilides,  r.  a.i>.  125, 

Marcion,  Ji.  c.  a.d.  135-142, 

Heracleon,  not  later  than  a.d.  160, 

Clementine  Homilies  and  Recognitions,  c.  a.d.  IGO 

Justin  .Alartyr,  c.  a.d.  139-146,  died  a.d.  148, 

Muratorian  Fragment,  c.  a.d.  160-170, 

Tatian,  c.  a.d.  110-180, 

Athenagora.?,  Melito,  c.  a.d.  177, 

Old   Latin    and   Sjriac  Versions,  before   last   quarter  of 

century, 
Theophilus,/.  c.  180-193,  . 
Ireriu3ns,  c.  a.d.  140-202,  wrote  c.  a.i>.  180 
Tertullian,  r.  a.d.  160-220, 
Clement  of  Alexandria, yZ.  c.  a.d.  189-219 
Origen,  c.  a.d.  184-253, 
Eusebius,  c.  a.d.  270-340,   . 
Athanasius,/.  329-373, 
Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  died  a.d.  380 
P4)iphanius,  c.  a.d.  367-403, 
Jerome,  c.  a.d.  329-420, 
Augustine,  c.  a.d.  354-430, 
Council  of  Nice,  a.d.  325,    . 
Pope  Eugenius,  a.d.  1441,  . 
Council  of  Trent,  a.d.  1546, 
Cyril  Lukar,  a.d.  1629, 
Dositheos,  a.d.  1672, 


PAGE 

before  Christ,  79 
80 
85 
104 
108 
110 
111 
112 
115 
116 
124 
127 
123 
130 
136 
191 
144 
148 


seconc 


150 
148 
158,  192 
160,  192 
161 


193 
193 
194 
194 
145 
194 
195 
196 
196 
197 
200 
201 


%  T 


*l 


CONTEXTS, 


LECTURE  I. 

PAGE 

What  the  Bible  claims  to  be,             ....  I-34 

The  special  subject  of  our  course  is  the  New  Testament,        .  1 

1.  The  books   of   the   New  Testament  claim  to   be  true,  '2 

Narrative  and  doctrine  inseparably  blended,  .             .  2 

2.  The  books  of  the  Bible  claim  unity,        ...  3 

Historical  unity,            .....  4 

Perpetuity  of  doctrine,             .             .             .         "    .  5-7 
Attempt  to  account  for  this  unity  by  supposing   many  of 

them  to  be  forgeries  of  a  particular  epoch,          .             .  7-12 

3."  The  writers  of  the  books  claim  authoritf/,            .             .  ];3 

Examination  of  1  Cor.  vii.,      .             .             .             .  14 

Has  the  same  claim  been  made  by  the  founders  of  other  religions?  17 

Max  Miiller's  statement,           .             ...             .  17 

Religions  not  professing  to  be  based  on  a   revelation  con- 
tained in  books,            .....  18-22 

'  Book-religions,'         ......  22-o  I 

The  unparalleled  claims  of  the  books  of  the  Bible  do  not 

shield  them  from  investigation,                .             .             .  31-34 


LECTURE  IL 
Characteristics  of  those  New  Testament  Scriptures  which 

HAVE  BEEN   SEEN  TO   CLAIM   TrUTH,  UnITY,  AND  AUTHORITY,         35-06 

1.  The  nature  or  extent  of  inspiration  is  not  defined,  .  35 

2.  This  being  so,  a  definite  theory  of  inspiration  impossible,  42 
.     3.  Not  enough  to  ascribe  honesty  and  accuracy  to  the 

writers  of  Scripture,    .  .  .  .  .  AC) 

4.  We  cannot  say  that  any  part  of  Scripture  is  only  divine, 

or  that  it  is  only  human,  ....  47 


CONTENTS. 


.  No  promise  was  marie  that  the  words  of  Jesus  or  of 
His  apostles  would    be   infallibly  and    miraculously 
preserved,         ......  50 

Keverthcless   there   has   been   marvellous    providential 

provision — Transcripts  of  the  Gospels,  .  .  52 

There  is  a  record  of  progressive  revelation,        .  .  56 

Progress  in  religion  not  merely  human,  .  .  58 

Each  stage  of  progress  in  the  Bible  w^as  the  result  of  a 

new  revelation,  .....  62 

Not  progress  from  legend  to  history,       ...  65 


LECTURE  III. 

Formation  of  a  Canon  of  Scripture.    The  Old  Testament 
AND  THE  New  at  the  Beginning  of  the  Christian  Era, 
The  point  of  contact  between  the  Old  and  the  New, 
Habitual  reading  of  Scripture  the  custom  in  the  synagogue 
Thus  the  Jew  was  familiar  with  a  standard  collection  of 

books,  though  the  word  Canon  was  unknown,   . 
That  collection  was  regarded  as  closed, 
The  Hebrew  Canon  and  the  Alexandrian,   . 
The  Je\\ish  estimate  of  the  Old  Testament  Apocrypha 
The  Christian  estimate  of  the  Old  Testament, 
The  consequent  significance  of  the  claim  to  be  regarded  as 
authoritative  made  in  the  books  of  the  New  Testament, 


.       67 

-94 

68 

,f 

71 

)i 

75 

78 

, 

80 

.       82 

-86 

.       86 

-89 

90-94 


LECTURE  lY. 


The  Early  Church  and  the  Canonical  Books  of  the  New 
Testament,    ...... 

The  gap  in  the  records,       .... 

The  second  century  the  battle-ground  of  criticism, 

The  argument  of  the  Tubingen  critics, 
No  extant  cxtra-canomcal  hooks  are  really  competitors  for  a 
place  in  the  Cano)i, 

Clement  of  Rome,    . 

'  2  Clement; 

Barnabas^    . 

Hernias, 

Poly  carp,     . 

Ignatius, 

Papiasj 


95- 


135 
95 
96 
97 

102 
104 
108 
109 
111 
112 
115 
117 


CONTEXTS. 


XI 


TIic  Gnofitics, 

Gnostic  writings  generally, 

A  Gnostic  philosopher — BasiUdcs, 

A  Gnostic  critic — Marcioii, 

A  Gnostic  romance — The  Clcnunfhics^ 


PAGE 

120-135 
.  121 
.     124 

,  .  V27 
.     180 


LECTURE  V 


AND  CnniSTiAN  TTkiters, 
18( 


13: 


Evidence  of  the  Apologists,  Versions, 
FROM  Justin  Martyr  to  Eusebius, 
The  Apologists  and  their  work,   . 
Justin  Martfjr, 

Importance  of  Justin, 
His  word  Memoirs,   . 
Teitian, 

Atheneigoreis^     . 
Melito, 
Theopliihis, 

The  Versions  of  the  New  Testament,        .  .  ,  150- 

Tbe   ^luratorian   Fragment,    and    its    principle   that   apostolic 
authorship  or  apostolic  warrant  entitles  a  book  to  a  place 
in  Scripture,  ...... 

The  three  chief  Christian  writers  at  the  close  of  the  second 
century,         .  .  .  .  .  .158- 

Irenxus^ 
TertiiUiem, 

Clement  of  Alexandria, 
Tiie  third  century — Origen, 
'i'estimony  of  Eusebius  (fourth  century)  to  the  historical  posi- 
tion of  the  canonical  and  extra-canonical  books. 
The  Disputed  Books — Second  and  Third  Eps.  of  St.  John, 
Ep.  of  St.  James,  ...... 

Second  Ep.  of  St.  Peter,  St.  Jude,         .... 

The  Apocalypse,  ...... 

Tlie  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,     ..... 

Conclusion — The  proof  of  apostolic  authorship  led  to  acceptance 
of  a  hook  as  authoritative,     .  .  '  . 

Note. — Tatian  and  his  Diatcssaron,      .... 


176 
136 
144 
137 
143 
144 
14S 
148 
148 
■153 


158 

■162 
158 
160 
161 
163 

168 
170 
170 
171 
172 
175 

176 
177 


LECTURE  VL 

Why  Christendom  has  ascribed  AUTHORITY  to  the  Canonical 
Books  of  the  New  Testament,  ..... 
The  first  utterances  speak  from  the  consciousness  of  member- 
ship of  a  living  Church,  whose  Head  was  the  livmg  Christ, 


181 


181 


:xii 


COXTEXTS. 


PAGE 

The    books   were    accepted    because    tliey   came    from    the 

accredited  founders  of  that  living  Church,  .  .  182-187 

Distinction  between  this  and  the  Koman  Catholic  position,     ,     188 
Historical  Pkoof  that  ArosTOLiCAL  Authorship  was  indis- 
pensable TO  a  Book  receiving  Canonical  position,       191-196 


The  Muratorian  Cation^  .... 

Irenasns  and  Tertulliau,  .... 

Origen  and  Eusehius,    ..... 

Atkanasius^       ...... 

Cyril  and  Jerome,  ..... 

Augustine,         .  .  .  . 

Summary,         ...... 

From  the  Council  of  Xice  to  the  lieforniation, 

The  Roman  Catholic  Canon,     .... 

The  Canon  of  the  Greek  Church, 

The  first  creeds  of  the  Reformers  did  not  give  a  list  of  books. 
The  first  Reformers  held  that  Scripture  is  simply  self 
evidencing,  ..... 

Luther,  ...... 

Zwingli,  ...... 

Calvin  and  the  admission  of  historical  testimony, 
The  Reformers  did  not  '  hold  by  an  Infallible  Book,'    . 
Anglican  Articles,  ..... 

Westminster  Confession,  .... 

Our  Reasons  for  accepting  the  Bible  as  the  Word  of  God, 
First.  They  are  not  merely  objective,  as  those  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church,  the    Greek    Church,    and  the   Church   of 
England,        ....... 

Second.   They  are   not  wholly  subjective,  like   those   of   the 
Reformers,  Coleridge,  Milman.     Results  of  subjectivity  in 
James  Martineau,      ...... 

Third.  They  are  not,  like  those  of  Professor  i>ec7.-,  irrespective 
of  historical  evidence,  ..... 

Fourth.  They  are  of   necessity  partly  objective,  partly  sub- 
jective, .  ...... 

Note.  —  Drs.  Diestel   and    Robertson    Smitli    on    Ireiiteas   and 
the  Rule  of  Faith,     ..... 


191 
192 
193 
194 
194 
195 
195 
196 
198 
199 
202 

203 
204 
206 
207 
208 
209 
210 
211 


211 


213 


217 


20 


224 


LECTUEE  I. 

WHxVT  THE  BIBLE  CLAIMS  TO  BE. 

The  first  step  to  be  taken  in  an  investigation 
into  the  rightful  place  of  New  Testament  Scrip- 
ture, is  to  inquire  what  it  claims  to  be.  It  is 
unreasonable  to  begin  by  considering  what  it 
ought  to  be,  or  must  be.  Nor  is  it  advantageous 
even  to  consider  in  the  first  place  what  it  is — this 
New  Testament  with  which  we  are  so  familiar. 
Those  books  —  what  are  they  ?  a  most  proper 
question ;  but,  first  of  all.  Those  books — what  do 
they  claim  to  be  ? 

In  asking  this  question,  we  assume  generally  the 
existence  of  a  Canon  of  Holy  Scripture ;  for  it  is 
a  fact  that  such  a  Canon  has  been  handed  down  to 
us  from  bygone  days.  The  evidence  on  which  any 
particular  book  was  received  into  the  Canon  does 
not  meanwhile  concern  us.  An  examination  of 
that  evidence  may  be  needed  in  order  to  test  the 
claims  of  such  a  book  to  be  part  of  Scripture,  but 
our  first  concern  is  with  the  Canon  as  a  whole. 

1.  And  first,  we  observe  that  all  the  books  of 
the    New    Testament,    like    those    of    Scripture 

A 


2  WHAT  THE  BIBLE  CLAIMS  TO  BE.        [Lect.  i. 

generally,  claim  to  be  true.  The  writers  of 
Scripture  profess  that  they  write  no  cunningly 
devised  fables.  From  the  beginning  of  St. 
Matthew's  Gospel  to  the  end  of  Jude, — we  may 
even  say  to  the  end  of  the  Apocalypse, — all 
professes  to  be  true.  Taking  no  higher  ground 
than  that  of  the  ground  of  historical  accuracy,  we 
have  to  remember  that  no  writer  asks  for  himself 
less  consideration  than  St.  Luke,  who  wrote  his 
Gospel  that  ^  Theophilus  might  know  the  certainty 
of  those  things  in  which  he  had  been  instructed.' 
When  an  attempt  is  made  to  treat  the  incidents 
of  the  Gospels  as  myths  or  legends,  a  violent  hand 
is  laid  upon  the  narratives,  because  the  writers 
themselves  evidently  proceed  on  the  statements  as 
facts.  When  the  endeavour  is  to  separate  the 
doctrine  from  the  history,  as  we  distinguish  in 
^sop  between  the  moral  and  the  fable,  it  is  a 
bootless  effort,  because  the  gospel  doctrine  is  the 
doctrine  of  a  Life,  so  that  the  doctrine  stands  or 
falls  with  the  facts.  The  faith  of  Christendom  is 
fixed  on  the  living  Lord  of  the  Church,  and  that 
faith  cannot  be  now  retained,  any  more  than  it 
could  be  retained  in  St.  Paul's  day,  unless  the 
history  of  Christ's  resurrection  be  true.  '  If  Christ 
be  not  risen,  then  our  faith  is  vain.'  The  doc- 
trines of  the  Scripture  are  inseparably  blended 
with  the  historical  narratives  ;  and  these  histories, 
if  they  be  false,  drag  down  with  them  into  their 


Lect.  I.]  CLAIM  OF  UNITY.  3 

i[)it  of  error  the  doctrines  also,  however  holy  and 
dear  those  may  be.  But  alike  for  the  narratives 
and  the  doctrinal  statements  which  they  contain, 
the  books  of  the  New  Testament  claim  that  they 
are  true. 

2.  Further,  those  books  claim  for  themselves 
Unity.  The  books  of  Scripture  are  a  series,  not  a 
congeries.  This  is  true  of  the  Bible  as  a  whole, 
and  is  the  most  remarkable  fact  in  literature  as 
well  as  in  religion.  I  am  not  aware  that  the 
sacred  books  of  any  other  creed  contain  any- 
thing that  can  even  be  compared  with  it.  In  the 
long  history  of  one  family,  a  consistent  revelation 
is  expanded,  developed,  and  completed,  being  the 
teaching  of  a  Father  who  gave  the  truth  to  His 
children  as  they  were  able  to  take  it  in.  In  this 
the  two  Testaments  are  alike — each  in  relation  to 
the  j)arts  which  compose  it.  In  the  Old  Testa- 
ment the  history  of  the  chosen  jDcople  follows  step 
by  step  from  the  call  of  Abraham,  through  the 
legislation  of  the  Pentateuch  and  the  annals  of 
the  kingdom,  with  psalms  and  prophets  filling  up 
with  light  and  song  the  rapid  sketch  given  in  the 
narrative  of  the  nation's  laws  and  sins.  In  the 
New  Testament,  in  like  manner,  each  part  is  linked 
with  each  from  the  birth  of  Jesus  Christ,  throuo-h 
His  mighty  life  and  His  mightier  death  and  rising 
again,  and  through  the  marvels  that  His  Church 
did  and  saw  when  His  Spirit  came,  on  to  the  vision 


4  WHAT  THE  BIBLE  CLAIMS  TO  BE.        [Lect.  i. 

of  the  future  day  in  which  the  seer  saw  His  second 
coming  to  reign.  We  need  not  pause  to  prove  that 
the  Epistles  are  a  continuation  of  the  Gospels,  or 
to  show  how  inseparable  are  the  facts  of  the  Acts 
of  the  Apostles  from  the  assertions  of  the  Pauline 
Epistles.  The  connection  is  too  obvious  to  be 
overlooked.  Thus  is  each  Testament  as  a  whole 
composed  of  parts  which  spring  out  of  each  other. 
In  the  same  way  the  two  Testaments  are  con- 
nected with  each  other.  St.  Matthew's  Gospel 
connects  the  appearance  of  Christ  with  the  faith 
of  ancient  Israel,  and  the  Epistles  develop  the 
doctrines  of  Christianity  in  living  connection  with 
the  types  and  the  foreshadowings  of  the  former 
dispensation.  The  ancient  prophet  said  :  ^  Thou, 
Israel,  art  my  servant,  Jacob  whom  I  have 
chosen,  the  seed  of  Abraham  my  friend.  Thou 
whom  I  have  taken  from  the  ends  of  the  earth, 
and  called  thee  from  the  chief  men  thereof,  and 
said  unto  thee.  Thou  art  my  servant  ;  I  have 
chosen  thee,  and  not  cast  thee  away '  (Isa.  xli.  8). 
In  like  manner  the  apostle  said  of  Israel,  '  that 
blindness  in  part  is  happened  to  them  till  the  ful- 
ness of  the  Gentiles  be  come  in.  .  .  .  As  concern- 
ing the  gospel,  they  are  enemies  for  your  sakes  : 
but  as  touching  the  election,  they  are  beloved  for 
the  fathers'  sakes.  For  the  gifts  and  calling  of 
God  are  without  repentance'  (Kom.  xi.  29). 

Let  ns  dwell  for  a  moment  on  what  this  unity 


Lect.  I.]  WHAT  THE  UNITY  IMPLIES.  5 

implies.  I  have  spoken  of  it  as  a  historical  unity, 
a  unity  of  fact  and  purpose,  linked  like  one  long 
chain  through  all  the  ages  during  which  the  book 
was  being  made  in  the  lives  of  redeemed  and 
sanctified  men.  But  this  is  not  all.  There  is  an 
absolute  perpetuity  of  doctrine  throughout  Scrip- 
ture. The  Jews  were  a  people  as  prone  to  sensual 
indulgence,  to  infidelity,  and  to  idolatry  as  any 
other  people,  and  yet  in  the  midst  of  them  grew 
up  the  revelation  of  holy  law  and  spiritual  wor- 
ship and  self-denying  purity  of  life,  out  of  which, 
in  the  ^  fulness  of  the  times,'  there  grew,  as  a 
fruitful  branch  from  a  living  root,  the  marvellous 
manifestation  of  God  in  the  gospel  of  His  Son. 
Our  purpose  is  to  deal  with  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament,  but  we  cannot  forget  that  they  not 
only  claim  to  stand  in  the  same  unity  with  each 
other,  but  to  be  parts  of  a  unity  which  contains 
in  it  the  whole  old  covenant  as.  well.  It  is  not 
the  unity  of  a  consistent  speculation,  or  of  a  logical 
statement,  which  might  have  been  the  work  of. 
some  peculiarly  qualified  men  at  a  particular  date. 
It  is  not  the  unity  of  a  school  of  philosophy  where 
the  master's  spirit  almost  unconsciously  moves  his 
disciples.  It  is  a  unity  of  action  and  experience, 
as  well  as  of  thought  and  purpose  and  aspiration ; 
a  unity  revealed  in  a  marvellous  history  as  well  as 
in  a  marvellous  book.  It  is  a  unity  like  that  of 
the    lio-ht    of   heaven,    which   is    one    because    its 


6  WHAT  THE  BIBLE  CLAIMS  TO  BE.         [Lect.  i. 

source  is  one.  It  is,  in  short,  the  unity  of  the 
revealing  God,  who  at  sundry  times  and  in  divers 
manners  spake  in  time  past  unto  the  fathers  by 
the  prophets,  but  in  the  last  days  spake  unto  men 
by  His  Son.  This  is  the  claim  in  Matt.  v.  1 7,  and 
of  Heb.  i. 

The  doctrine,  that  there  is  one  living  God,  is 
that  to  which  thought  has  brought  thinkers  ;  but 
the  strange  pre-eminence  of  the  Bible  lies  in  this 
being  from  the  first  unto  the  last  the  doctrine  of 
which  its  whole  teaching  is  full.  In  the  ancient 
days,  when  Assyria  was  finding  a  separate  spirit  in 
every  power  of  nature  and  in  almost  every  natural 
object,  and  when  Phoenicia  was  adoring  the  sun 
as  the  primary  power  of  all  things,  Abraham  and 
his  seed  ofiered  the  homaofe  of  their  love  to  the 
Eternal  Spirit  who  of  old  made  the  world  and  all 
things  that  creep  and  fly  in  it,  and  who  set  the 
sun  to  rule  the  day  and  the  moon  to  rule  the 
night.  The  idea  which  had  currency  not  long 
ago,  that  the  Semitic  nations  were  Monotheists  in 
virtue  of  a  superior  mental  constitution,  has  been 
scattered  like  a  morning  dream  by  recent  re- 
searches. The  whole  of  the  Semitic  tribes— as,  for 
example,  the  Moabites,  Ammonites,  and  Baby- 
lonians— seem  to  have  been  incapable  of  rising  to 
the  great  doctrine  of  the  unity  and  spirituality  of 
God,  the  living  God.  But  that  doctrine  is  the 
key-note  of  the   Scripture  from  first  to  last.     The 


Lect.  I.]  BIBLE  MONOTHEISM.  7 

Monotheism  of  the  Israelites  stands  alone  in  his- 
tory.^ It  is  neither  the  Monotheism  of  Egypt, 
which,  like  the  worship  of  Phoenicia,  was  a  kind 
of  solar  Pantheism ;  nor  like  that  of  Persia,  later 
in  date,  which  was  really  Dualism  ;  nor  like  that  of 
ancient  India,  where  worship  was  broken  up  into  in- 
vocations of  many  gods,  each  successively  addressed 
as  supreme.  There  is  nothing  in  ancient  or  in 
modern  religions  outside  of  the  Bible  which  can  for 
a  moment  compare  with  the  revelation  made  in 
Horeb  to  Moses,  a  revelation  that  was  so  often  the 
burden  of  prophetic  cry  in  the  after  days  :  '  The 
Lord,  the  Lord  God,  merciful  and  gracious,  long- 
suffering  and  abundant  in  goodness  and  truth.' 
This  unity  has  no  parallel — the  unity  of  the  suc- 
cession of  books  which  all  tell  in  letter  and  in  spirit 
of  one  God,  the  living  and  the  loving  God. 

Nor  Avill  it  avail  to  reply  to  this,  that  the  unity 
is  not  so  marvellous  as  it  seems,  because  the  books 
are  the  forgeries  or  inventions  of  one  particular 
epoch.  We  must  not  attempt  to  reason  on  the 
subject  of  the  Old  Testament,  because  it  would 
turn  us  from  the  primary  object  of  those  lectures  ; 
but  it  is  a  simple  matter  of  fact  that  every  critic, 
even  of  the  most  destructive  school,  who  attempts 
anything  constructive  in  regard  to  the  composition 
of  the  Old  Testament,  has  to  lay  down  as  the  basis 

1  On  the  religion  of  the  ancient  Eastern  nations,  see  Auberlen's 
Divine  Revelation,  p.  126,  and  Max  Miiller,  Hist,  of  Sansk.  Lit.,  chap, 
iv.,  especially  p.  558. 


8  WHAT  THE  BIBLE  CLAIMS  TO  BE.         [Lect.  i. 

of  his  system  that,  whatever  be  the  date  at  which 
the  books  were  WTitten,  the  nation  and  the  national 
life  of  Israel  sprang  from  faith  in  the  covenant 
God,  who  had  chosen  the  fathers,  and  was  fulfilling 
His  promise  unto  their  children.^  But  let  us  turn 
to  the  New  Testament.  We  can  see  in  the  books 
which  compose  it  organic  unity  of  such  a  kind  as 
to  warrant  us  in  inferring  from  one  portion  the 
general  nature  of  the  whole,  as  an  anatomist  can 
tell  from  one  bone  what  the  skeleton  has  been. 
The  second  quarter  of  this  centuiy  saw  the  rise 
and  culmination  of  a  singularly  learned,  able,  and 
adventurous  school  of  New  Testament  critics, — the 
Tubingen  School,  —  whose  main  tenet  was  that 
Christianity  grew  into  its  present  shape  under  the 
influence  of  various  conflicting  tendencies  among 
which  it  was  a  compromise.  They  set  aside  its 
supernatural  character ;  they  regard  its  predictions 
as  written  after  the  events,  and  the  miracles  as 
exaggerations  of  facts  which  did  actually  occur,  or 
as  legends  invented  by  a  conviction  that  such 
things  must  have  been  because  they  were  neces- 
sary to  complete  men's  ideas  of  The  Christ.  They 
maintain  that  the  books  were  not  written  till  long 
after  the  events,  till  dreams  and  legends  had  time 
to  grow  into  their  present  shape.  That  is  what 
men  are  now  maintaining  as  to  the  Old  Testament ; 
but   we    are    speaking  of  the   school  which  some 

^  This  may  be  seen  in  the  systems  of  Reuss,  Wellbausen,  etc. 


Lect.  I.]      THE  EPISTLES  LMPLY  THE  GOSPELS.  9 

forty  years  ago  applied  those  ideas  to  the  New 
Testament,  and  especially  to  the  Life  of  Christ  in 
the  Gospels.  But  the  ablest  and  clearest  of  them 
all — Baur  himself — allowed  that  four  of  St.  Paul's 
letters  and  the  Apocalypse  of  John  were  genuine. 
And  we  need  no  more  than  this  to  show  that  the 
whole  system  is  untenable.  For  what  do  we  find  ? 
We  find  in  those  Epistles,  themselves  of  the  very 
earliest  date,  all  the  leading  characteristics  of  the 
Christian  system,  which,  according  to  the  theory, 
are  supposed  to  have  been  the  growth  of  the 
subsequent  hundred  years.  It  is  of  no  avail  to 
say  that  miracles  and  predictions  had  grow^n 
around  the  traditional  idea  of  Jesus  Christ  until 
they  took  shape  in  the  Gospels  of  our  Canon  during 
the  second  century.  In  contradiction  of  that 
allegation  is  the  fact  that  those  admittedly  genuine 
letters  of  St.  Paul  found  upon  the  miracles  of 
Christ's  life,  and  rest  upon  the  Eesurrection  as 
the  primary  and  indispensable  basis  of  the  whole 
system,  as  proving  the  triumphant  close  of  the 
incarnate  life  and  atoning  death  of  the  Saviour. 
'  Paul,  an  apostle,  not  from  man,  neither  through 
man,  but  through  Jesus  Christ,  and  God  the  Father, 
who  raised  Him  from  the  dead '  (Gal.  i.  1).  In  those 
memorable  words  of  an  admittedly  genuine  Epistle, 
Paul  claims  to  have  been  addressed,  and  despatched 
on  his  mission  of  love  and  toil,  by  the  Personal 
Saviour  speaking  to  him  from  on  high.     So,  too, 


10  WHAT  THE  BIBLE  CLAIMS  TO  BE.        [Lect.  i. 

he  tells  the  Romans  that  the  subject  of  the  gospel 
is  God's  Son,  Jesus  Christ  '  our  Lord,  which  was 
made  of  the  seed  of  David  according  to  the  flesh/ 
— there  we  have  the  incarnation  asserted  as  a 
cardinal  fact, — ^and  declared  to  be  the  Son  of  God 
with  power,  according  to  the  spirit  of  holiness,  by 
the  resurrection  from  the  dead '  (Rom.  i.  3,  4) ; 
there  we  have  the  resurrection  with  power  con- 
nected with  the  holy  sinlessness  of  Jesus  Christ. 
It  is  perfectly  clear  that  the  gospel  which  Paul 
believed  and  preached  w^as  the  same  gospel  that 
is  preserved  for  us  by  our  canonical  Evangelists. 

Nor  is  this  all.  See  how  St.  Paul  charges  and 
challenges  his  very  opponents  to  consider  not  only 
the  miracles  of  the  life  of  Christ,  but  the  miracles 
which  attested  the  truth  of  apostolic  preaching. 
'  0  foolish  Galatians,  who  did  bewitch  you,  before 
whose  eyes  Jesus  Christ  was  openly  set  forth 
crucified  ?  .  .  .  He  therefore  that  supplieth  to  you 
the  Spirit,  and  worJceth  miracles  among  you,  doeth 
he  it  by  the  works  of  the  law,  or  by  the  hearing 
of  faith  ? '  (Gal.  iii.  1,  5).  Here  is  an  appeal  to 
miracles  as  to  manifest  facts  with  which  the 
Galatians  Avere  familiar,  which  they  had  experi- 
enced ;  yea,  which  some  of  their  own  number  were 
working.^     In  the  same  way  he  says  to  the  Corin- 

^  The  Greek  participles  '  supplying  '  and  '  ministering '  may  be  imper- 
fect, and  may  mean  '  He  therefore  that  supplied  to  you  the  Spirit,  and 
worked  miracles  among  you  ' — at  that  time  when  ye  received  the  Spirit 
(ver.  2).     But  it  is  perhaps  more  natural  to  regard  the  words  as  in 


Lect.  r.]  MIRACULOUS  POWER  CLAIMED.  H 

thians  divided  against  themselves,  and  disparaging 
him  :  '  Truly  the  signs  of  an  apostle  were  wrought 
among  you  in  all  patience,  by  signs,  and  wonders, 
and  mighty  works'  (2  Cor.  xii.  12).  We  need  to 
bear  in  mind  that  those  passages  were  no  rhetorical 
outbursts,  but  were  in  each  case  the  very  point  of 
an  earnest  argument  addressed  to  unfriendly  men. 
The  Galatians  had  fallen  away  from  the  faith  which 
Paul  preached  among  them ;  were  in  fact  opposed 
to  him  ;  some  of  them  were  even  turning  him  to 
ridicule  ;  and  the  apostle  seeks  to  bring  them  back 
to  a  true  position  by  appeaHng  to  the  well-known 
facts  of  miraculous  power  (Bwdfxei^)  with  which 
they  were  familiar.  'Can  you  apostatize  (he 
says)  from  a  faith  based  on  indisputable  miracles 
wrought  among  you  ? '  Had  such  miracles  not 
been  wrought,  would  Paul  have  dared  to  appeal 
to  them  as  evidence  ?  Nor  was  this  an  argument 
addressed  only  to  the  impressible  Celts  of  Galatia. 
We  have  seen  that  when  he  wrote  to  the  culti- 
vated and  practised  disputants  of  Achaia,  who 
did  not  own  his  apostolical  authority,  he  said  in 
words  of  the  same  purport  :  '  Ye  Corinthians  know 
very  well  that  I  wrought  miracles,  and  signs,  and 
wonders  among  you,  and  am  I,  then,  not  an 
apostle  ? ' 

Now,  a  man  may  reject  the  book  of  the  Acts  of 

present  time,  and  if  so,  the  inference  is  irresistible  that  some  of  the 
Galatians  were  using  miraculous  endowments  at  the  time  when  the 
apostle  wrote. 


12  WHAT  THE  BIBLE  CLAIMS  TO  BE.         [Lect.  i. 

the  Apostles  ever  so  summarily ;  but  if  he  admits 
the  genuineness  of  the  Epistles  to  Galatia,  Kome, 
and  Corinth,  he  must  admit  that  the  men  to  whom 
Paul  wrote — even  those  of  them  who  were  his 
enemies — were  fully  convinced  of  the  miraculous 
gifts  of  the  apostles,  and  had  seen  them  in  the 
midst  of  their  daily  life. 

If  time  permitted,  it  could  be  proved  of  Christian 
doctrine  that  the  germ  of  every  doctrine  is  found 
in  any  one  of  those  Epistles,  and  indeed  in  every 
one  of  the  principal  books  of  the  New  Testament ; 
so  that  in  a  hundred  positive  statements  and  a 
thousand  undesigned  coincidences  the  marvellous 
unity  of  the  Christian  Scriptures  is  clearly  seen. 
And  it  is  so  seen  as  to  show,  that  not  only  are  the 
events  recorded  in  the  Gospels  necessary  precursors 
of  the  allusions  and  appeals  of  the  Epistles,  but  the 
evangelic  narratives  themselves  are  proved  by  their 
simplicity  of  structure  and  statement,  and  by  their 
mode  of  recording  facts  without  drawing  doctrinal 
conclusions,  to  be  substantially  earlier  than  the 
more  systematized  and  developed  teaching  of  the 
apostolic  letters.  It  is  inconceivable  that  anything 
so  simple,  direct,  and  so  devoid  of  any  statement  of 
inferences  as  any  one  of  our  Synoptic  Gospels  could 
be  the  sequel  of  the  Pauline  Epistles,  and  be  written 
to  account  for  them  or  to  sustain  them.  All  the 
rules  of  literary  probability  are  violated  when  the 
narratives  of  the  gospel — or,  let  us  say,  narratives 


Lect.  I.]  CLAIM  OF  AUTHORITY.  13 

SO  nearly  identical  with  our  Synoptic  Gospels  that 
no  discrepancy  whatever  can  be  established — are 
not  admitted  as  the  '  gospel '  which  Paul  preached 
(1  Cor.  XT.  1). 

Not  only,  therefore,  do  we  find  unity  of  statement 
and  of  doctrine,  but  a  unity  wuth  a  historical 
development  in  the  books  of  the  New  Testament. 
To  what  other  collection  of  writings,  composed  by 
so  many  men  during  so  many  years,  and  in  circum- 
stances so  diverse,  can  such  unity  be  ascribed  ? 

3.  Again,  the  writers  of  those  books  claim 
Authority.  They  do  not  seem  to  contemplate  the 
possibility  of  being  in  error,  whether  they  speak  of 
things  past,  present,  or  to  come ;  and  they  do  not 
admit  that  any  man  can  be  justified  who  disobeys 
their  teachings.  '  Though  we  or  an  angel  from 
heaven  should  preach  unto  you  any  gospel  other 
than  that  which  we  preached  unto  you,  let  him 
be  ■  anathema '  (Gal.  i.  8).  Peter  admonishes  his 
Jewish  brethren  to  be  mindful  not  more  of  '  the 
words  w^hich  were  spoken  before  by  the  holy  pro- 
phets '  than  of  ^  the  commandments  of  the  Lord 
and  Saviour  through  your  apostles '  (2  Peter  iii.  2). 
And  perhaps  the  most  suggestive  words  of  all  are 
those  of  St.  Paul  :  '  Which  things  also  we  speak, 
not  in  words  which  man's  wisdom  teacheth,  but 
which  the  Holy  Spirit  teacheth ;  comparing  spiritual 
things  with  spiritual'  (1  Cor.  ii.  13).  Again,,  he 
thanks  God  that  when  the  Thessalonians  received 


14  WHAT  THE  BIBLE  CLAIMS  TO  BE.         [Lect.  i. 

from  him  the  message,  even  the  words  of  God, 
they  accepted  it,  *  not  as  the  words  of  men,  but,  as 
it  is  in  truth,  the  word  of  God'  (1  Thess.  ii.  13). 
If,  as  is  commonly  beUeved,  the  Thessalonian 
Epistles  are  the  oldest  of  St.  Paul's  wTitings,  we 
have  a  special  significance  in  the  words  of  1  Thess. 
V.  27,  which  solemnly  enjoin  the  public  reading  of 
his  letters  in  public  Christian  worship  :  '  I  adjure 
you  by  the  Lord  that  this  Epistle  be  read  unto  all 
the  brethren'  (1  Thess.  v.  27).  So  also  2  Thess. 
ii.  15,  iii.  12;  Eph.  ii.  20. 

There  is  a  passage  which  has  been  sometimes 
founded  upon  as  though  it  drew  a  distinction 
between  words  which  came  on  St.  Paul's  own 
authority  and  those  which  had  the  direct  authority 
of  God.  But  in  the  chapter  referred  to  (1  Cor.  vii.) 
the  apostle  is  not  distinguishing  between  God's 
commandments  and  his  own  teachings,  but  between 
the  things  which  he  was  authorized  to  teach  for  the 
first  time  and  those  in  which  he  was  repeating  the 
decisions  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  in  the  days  of 
His  flesh. ^       In  the  last  verse  he  winds  up  the 

^  The  passages  in  1  Cor.  vii.  to  which  reference  is  here  made  are : 
Ver.  10 — '  Unto  the  married  I  give  charge,  yet  not  /,  hut  the  Lord,  That 
the  wife  depart  not  from  her  husband ;  .  .  .  and  let  not  the  husband 
put  away  his  wife.'  The  Lord  gave  His  clear  commandment  against 
separation  of  spouses  on  any  ground  save  that  of  adultery  in  Matt.  v.  32 
and  xix.  6-9.  Ver.  12 — 'But  to  the  rest  say  /,  7iot  the  Lord:  If  any 
brother  hath  an  unbelieving  wife,'  etc.  That  is,  the  case  of  a  Christian 
whose  spouse  did  not  become  a  Christian  is  new  since  the  days  of  the 
Lord  in  the  flesh,  and  the  apostle  of  the  Lord  is  under  the  necessity  of 
providing  for  it.      Ver.  25 — '  Now  concerning  virgins  I  have  no  com- 


Lect.  I.]  ST.  PAUL  IN  1  COR.  VII.  15 

subject  with  the  statement  that  a  widow  will  be 
happier  if  she  do  not  marry  again.  This,  he  savs, 
is  his  own  judgment  as  to  expediency,  formed  on 
his  observation  of  life, — it  is  no  matter  of  invariable 
right  and  wrong, — and  he  has  good  reason  to  know 
(his  claim  is  an  approved  claim)  that  he  also  has 
the  Spirit  of  God. 

We  have  been  dealing  only  with  the  New  Testa- 
ment, but  in  the  Old  Testament  also  we  find  strong 
claims  to  authority  :  '  The  word  of  the  Lord  came 
unto  Zechariah,  saying,  Thus  speaketh  the  Lord  of 
hosts.'  '  Truly,'  says  Micah,  '  I  am  full  of  power 
by  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord,  and  of  judgment,  and  of 
might,  to  declare  unto  Jacob  his  transgression,  and 
to  Israel  his  sins '  (Micah  iii.  8).^ 

The  prophets  prophesied  amid  prevailing  incre- 

mandmant  of  the  Lord,  but  I  give  my  judgment,  as  one  that  Lath  obtained 
mercy  of  the  Lord  to  be  faithful.'  St.  Paul  cannot  quote  here  a  direct 
commandment  of  the  Lord.  The  circumstances  of  the  Church  were  spe- 
cial. Neither  through  His  voice  in  the  days  of  His  flesh,  nor  by  His  Spirit 
when  the  apostle  wrote,  had  Christ  given  any  general  commandment ; 
but  Paul,  as  an  apostle  whom  grace  made  a  '  faithful '  steward  of  the 
divine  mysteries  (see  Acts  ix.  15,  xxii.  15,  xxvi.  10 ;  1  Cor.  iv.  1,  2), 
was  empowered  to  give  a  suggestion  or  recommendation.  It  was  not 
a  thing  for  commandments ;  it  was  a  thing  for  '  permission  '  (ver.  G). 
The  powers  and  natures  of  men  varied  so  mucli  that  no  general  rule 
could  be  laid  down.  This  is  expHcitly  said  in  verses  6  and  36,  37. 
Ver.  40 — '  I  give  my  judgment  (as  in  ver.  25),  and  I  claim  (here  as 
in  the  matter  of  ver.  25)  the  well-approved  position  of  one  who  also  has 
the  Spirit  of  God.'  Our  Revised  Version  translates  by  '  I  think '  two 
totally  different  words — uoix.iC,o)  (ver.  25)  and  Ioku  (ver.  40),  but  ookcj 
has  in  the  New  Testament  the  force  which  is  given  in  '  claim  an 
approved  (or  admitted)  position.'  The  Revisers  partially  admit  this  by 
translatmg  it  '  reputed '  in  Gal.  ii.  9. 

^  See  the  first  words  of  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  Joel,  Malachi ;  also,  Jer. 
xi.  13  ;  Micah  iv.  4  ;  Hosea  xii.  10,  11 ;  Amos  iii.  7  ;  and  Jer.  xxix.  8. 


16  WHAT  THE  BIBLE  CLAIMS  TO  BE.         [Lect.  i. 

dulity  (Ezek.  xii.  21),  and  oftentimes  had  to  take 
precautions  to  secure  the  record  of  their  words  (Isa. 
viii.  1-16),  and  even  to  face  personal  dangers  (Jer. 
xxvi.  11).  They  claim,  nevertheless,  to  have  super- 
natural manifestations  of  the  divine  will  made  unto 
them ;  to  be  under  constraint  to  declare  the  truth 
which  has  been  thus  revealed  to  them.  And  when 
we  remember  the  pure  morality  which  those  mes- 
sages convey,  the  unbounded  trust  in  the  living  God 
which  they  inculcate  and  exemplify,  it  is  impossible 
to  believe  that  the  prophets  were  either  deceivers 
or  self-deceived. 

We  have  also  to  remember  that,  while  most  of 
the  prophecies  claim  to  have  been  spoken  by  the 
direct  and  specific  command  of  God,  some  of  them 
claim  for  i^iemselves  that  they  were  not  only 
spoken  but  written  by  divine  authority.  Whether 
they  were  originally  spoken  or  written,  it  is  clear 
that,  as  eventually  written,  they  make  for  them- 
selves this  assertion  of  an  authority  more  than 
human.  Nor  is  this  true  only  of  prophecies,  since 
in  many  cases  the  same  claim  is  advanced  in  the 
historical  books.  Thus  in  the  Old  Testament 
Jehovah  said  :  ^  Write  this  for  a  memorial '  (Ex. 
xvii.  14;  Num.  xxxiii.  1).  The  written  law  is 
appointed  as  a  subject  of  study  for  the  captain 
of  Israel  (Joshua  i.  7,  8).  Compare  Ex.  xxiv.  4 
and  Deut.  xxxi.  24.  In  a  later  book  the  earlier 
books  are  called  '  Scripture  of  Truth/  which  mortals 


Lect.  I.]        CLAIM  OF  OTHER  SACRED  BOOKS.  17 

study  and  angels  are  sent  to  expound  (Dan.  x.  21, 
ix.  2).  To  this  claim  of  the  Old  Testament  the 
Saviour  set  His  seal  when  He  said  :  ^  Moses  wrote 
of  me'  (John  v.  46).  And  he  who  most  resembled 
the  prophets  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  seer  of  the 
Apocalypse,  is  commanded  on  twelve  different  occa- 
sions to  write  in  a  book,  and  those  writings  are 
called  the  true  sayings  of  God.  The  Lord  the  God 
of  the  spirit  of  the  prophets  sent  His  angel  to  show 
His  servants  in  Christian  times  the  thinofs  which 
must  shortly  come  to  pass  (Kev.  xxii.  6). 

Thus  there  is  a  claim  of  authority  advanced,  not 
only  on  behalf  of  the  men,  but  on  behalf  of  the 
books.  But  have  not  similar  claims  been  advanced 
in  behalf  of  other  books  counted  divine  by  great  sec- 
tions of  the  human  family  ?  We  believe  that  such 
a  claim  is  not  made  in  those  other  works  themselves. 
The  Bible,  addressing  itself  to  all  men  as  a  revela- 
tion, claims  truth,  unity,  and  authority.  Is  this  so 
with  other  sacred  books?  The  great  German 
scholar  who  on  English  ground  has  done  so  much 
to  advance  both  in  popular  interest  and  in  scientific 
grasp  the  twin  subjects  of  comparative  philology 
and  comparative  religion,  speaking  against  the 
attempt  to  classify  historical  religions  as  natural 
and  revealed,  says  that  the  classification  is  useless 
for  scientific  purposes,  and  adds  :  '  A  more  extended 
study  shows  us  very  soon  that  the  claim  of  revela- 
tion is  set  up  by  the  founders,  or  if  not  by  them,  at 

B 


WHAT  THE  BIBLE  CLAIMS  TO  BE.         [l 


EOT.   I. 


all  events  by  the  later  preachers  and  advocates  of 
most  religions,  and  would  therefore  be  declined  by 
all  but  ourselves  as  a  distinguishing  feature  of 
Christianity  and  Judaism.'  ^ 

When  we  look  closely  at  those  words  they  are 
seen  to  admit  of  an  inquiry  which  they  do  not 
suggest.  It  appears  that  in  some  cases  the  '  claim 
of  revelation'  may  not  have  been  made  by  the 
founders,  but  only  by  the  later  preachers  and 
advocates  of  the  particular  religion.  If,  however, 
it  was  not  made  by  the  founder  and  first  preachers, 
it  is  not  parallel  to  the  claim  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. We  have  seen  that  Christ  Himself  and 
the  apostles  claimed  that  their  words  were  authori- 
tative. We  might  have  showed  that  the  same  is 
true  of  the  organs  of  revelation  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. Do  we  find  the  same  to  be  true  of  other 
religions  ?  The  sacred  books  of  many  of  the  great 
religions  of  the  world  are  now  happily  within  the 
reach  of  all  of  us, — thanks  to  Professor  Max  MUller 
himself  and  to  his  fellow-labourers,^ — and  we  may 
search  them  to  ascertain  whether  the  claim  to  be 
a  divine  revelation  is  advanced  in  the  words  of  the 
founders,  advanced  to  the  people  for  whom  the 
reliofion  was  revealed. 

But  when  we  study  the  great  historical  religions  of 
the  world,  we  find  that  in  many  of  them  we  cannot 

1  Max  Muller,  Lectures  on  the  Science  of  Religion  (1873),  p.  129. 

2  In  the  Sacred  Books  of  the  East,  now  in  course  of  publication. 


Lect.  I.]    RELIGIONS  OF  GREECE,  ROME,  EGYPT.  19 

institute  the  desired  comparison  from  the  want 
of  sacred  books.  Beo'inning^  with  those  we  know 
best,  we  do  not  find  that  there  ever  was  a  book 
containing  the  rehgion  of  Greece ;  and  scholars 
toilsomely  hunt  for  allusions  ^  in  the  battle-songs 
of  Homer  or  in  the  speculations  of  Hesiod,  w^ell 
aware  that  no  sacred  book  guided  the  Hellenic 
worshipper  in  the  rites  of  his  great  Pantheon. 
Similarly  there  was  no  book  to  guide  the  devotees 
in  Rome ;  legend,  custom,  cravings  having  caused 
the  deification,  and  maintaining  the  worship,  of  the 
30,000  divine  potentates  who  were  supposed  to 
rule  the  rulers  of  the  world.  We  go  to  ancient 
Egypt,  where,  if  anywhere  in  the  old  times,  religion 
was  a  power.  We  find  sacred  texts  wrapping  the 
bodies  of  men  in  hig;h  life  and  of  men  in  low  life. 
The  royal  j^yramid  seems  not  to  have  been  more 
assuredly  (although  more  demonstratively)  the 
shrine  of  a  faith  in  some  sort  of  resurrection  and 
immortality  than  the  poor  man's  grave.  We  find 
in  some  hymns  to  the  Sun-god  words  of  lofty  im- 
port and  capable  of  expressing  high-spirited  devo- 
tion. But  we  not  only  do  not  find  any  sacred  books 
in  which  God  was  revealed,  and  by  which  men 
w^ere  guided ;  we  find  that  if  there  were  a  spiritual 
meaning  in  the  rites  of  the  dominant  faith,  it  was 
one  of  which  the  ordinary  worshipper  had  no  con- 

1  See  Mr.  Gladstone's  Juvenilis  Mundi  for  an  example  of  this  in  much 
detail,  not  leading  to  much  conviction. 


20  WHAT  THE  BIBLE  CLAIMS  TO  BE.         [Lect.  i. 

ception  or  dream.^  It  was  in  those  hymns,  if 
anywhere,  that  the  standard  of  Egyptian  religion 
was  contained ;  and  even  if  the  hymns  had  been 
used  and  understood  by  all  the  worshippers,  they 
still  could  not  be  compared  with  the  Bible,  because 
they  do  not  claim  the  character  and  the  authority 
of  a  revelation  by  God  to  man.^ 

The  sacred  books  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria,^  if 
there  ever  were  any,  have  not  been  recovered. 
The  earliest  Accadian  and  the  more  recent  Semitic 
records  have  come  only  in  fragments  into  our  hands  ; 

1  See  Rawlinson's  History  of  Ancient  Egypt ^  vol.  i.,  for  a  high  estimate 
of  the  esoteric  religion  of  Egypt.  See  Wilkinson's  Ancient  Egyptians 
(Birch),  vol.  ii.  p.  471  ff.,  for  proofs  of  its  want  of  power  over  the  people. 

2  It  is  beside  our  present  point  to  dwell  upon  the  fact  that  even  in  the 
Ritual  of  the  Dead  (which  is,  in  part  at  least,  the  oldest  Egyptian  reli- 
gious document),  with  its  picture  of  the  scene  when  the  soul  leaves  the 
body,  we  have  no  divine  view  of  sin,  but  an  extremely  human,  imper- 
fect, and  superficial  view  ;  so  that  the  soul  is  actually  imagined  as  able 
to  maintain  innocence  of  each  sin  laid  to  his  charge  before  the  Judge, 
and  as  entitled,  in  virtue  of  this  innocence,  to  entrance  on  the  more 
immediate  presence  of  the  Great  Osiris.  The  '  forty-and-two '  avengers 
or  accusers,  each  one  a  personification  of  the  sin  he  is  waiting  to  avenge, 
are  each  in  succession  obliged  to  admit  that  they  find  no  fault  in  him. 
The  first  of  the  soul's  statements  upon  trial  is :  '  I  have  neither  done 
any  sin  nor  omitted  any  duty  to  any  man  ! '  (See  Lepsius'  Book  of  the 
Bead,  with  introductory  translation  in  Bunsen's  Egypt's  Place  in  Uni- 
versal History,  vol.  v.  ;  Naville's  La  Litanie  du  Soleil,  p.  122  ;  Poole, 
Contemp.  Rev.,  vol.  xxxix.  p.  808 ;  Wilkinson's  Ancient  Egyptians 
(Birch's  edition),  vol.  ii.  pp.  471,  478.)  Hardwicke's  Christ  and  other 
]\Iasters  (p.  2Q  of  Egyptian  Religion)  maintains  on  insufficient  grounds 
that  the  ancient  melodies  of  Egypt  may  be  regarded  as  on  the  same 
level  with  the  Hindu  Vedas  and  the  sacred  books  of  the  Chinese.  But 
even  if  they  were  on  that  level,  they  could  not  (as  we  shall  see)  compare 
with  the  Bible.  The  Litany  of  Ra  first  appears  in  the  19th  dynasty, 
about  1400  B.C. 

^  Their  worship  of  the  heavenly  bodies,  probably  because  connected 
with  astrology,  regarded  the  moon  as  supreme;  while  in  Egypt  and 
Phoenicia  the  sun  had  the  chief  place. 


Lect.  1.]  ASSYRIA,  PHCEXICIA,  AMERICA.  21 

and  comparison  of  them  with  the  Bible,  as  regards 
their  claim  to  be  a  revelation,  is  not  possible.  But 
we  may  say  that,  while  they  contain  a  distorted 
tradition  of  the  Bible  history  of  the  Creation,  the 
Fall,  and  the  Deluofe,  and  a  more  distinct  reference 
to  man's  sins  than  we  find  in  other  old  extra- 
biblical  religions,  they  cannot  be  cited  as  claiming 
the  character  of  a  revelation. 

Nor  can  any  other  account  be  given  of  ancient 
Phoenicia.  On  the  heights  of  Syria,  beneath  the 
blazing  sun,  men  like  Balaam  reared  their  altars 
to  the  great  god  of  the  sun.  They  adored  him — 
Baal  or  Bel — as  the  author  of  light  and  life ;  but 
it  w^as  their  view  of  Baal,  not  Baal's  words  to 
them,  on  which  their  creed  and  their  ritual 
rested.  There  is  nothing  to  compare  with  the 
religion  of  the  Hebrew  and  of  the  Christian, 
resting  on  a  divine  revelation,  given  at  sundry 
times  and  in  divers  manners  by  the  one  living 
God. 

If  in  more  modern  times  we  pursue  an  inquiry 
among  the  heathen  tribes  of  America,  North  and 
South,  or  among^  those  of  the  scattered  islands  of 
the  Southern  Seas,  w^e  find  that  none  of  them  can  be 
said  to  possess  a  book-religion,  and  none  of  them  can 
be  compared  with  the  religion  of  the  Bible.  They 
all  have  vague  yearnings  for  a  Great  Spirit  — 
many  of  them  worship  the  spirit  of  departed 
relatives ;    in    Mexico   and   in   Polynesia  we   find 


22  WHAT  THE  BIBLE  CLAIMS  TO  BE.         [Lect.  i. 

traditions  resembling  the  Bible  history,  —  the 
Deluge  being  even  there,  as  indeed  everywhere,  a 
great  fact  in  the  earliest  memories  of  man, — but 
we  do  not  find  any  book  claiming  to  be  a  revelation 
from  the  Most  High  God} 

And  thus  we  find  that  in  some  of  the  most 
powerful  religions  of  tlie  ancient  world,  and  in 
many  of  the  prevalent  idolatries  of  more  recent 
times,  there  is  nothing  to  correspond  with  the 
religion  of  the  Bible,  which  claims  to  be  founded 
on  revelation. 

But  this  being  so,  let  us  turn  to  the  religions 
which  are  called  '  book-religions.' 

Let  us  first  take  those  regarding  the  nature  of 
which  there  can  be  little  doubt.  There  are  three 
religions  in  China  :  Confucianism,  Taoism,  and 
Buddhism.  Of  Buddhism  we  shall  speak  after- 
wards ;  but  in  regard  to  the  other  two,  what  do 
we  find  ?  We  find  books  of  philosophy — avowed 
philosophy — and  of  social  ethics  ;  but  we  do  not 
find  a  claim  to  revelation  in  the  original  docu- 
ments. It  is  true  that  here,  as  in  Babylon,  there 
are  historical  records  going  back  to  some  twenty- 
four  centuries  before  the  Christian  era,  but  they 
are  not  in  any  sense  a  Bible  or  guiding  revelation; 
and  that  here,  as  in  Egypt,  there  are  hymns  or 
poems    of    remote    antiquity,    which    were    in   the 

1  Mr.  Milne,  missionary  in  the  New  Hebrides,  tells  me  that  the  Fall 
and  the  Forbidden  Fruit  are  known  among  the  islanders,  who  are  of  a 
most  primitive  class. 


Lect.  I.]  CHINESE  SACRED  HYMNS.  23 

minds  and  mouths  of  men,  and  that  Confucius 
(whose  date  is  about  500  or  600  years  before 
Christ)  said  that  ^  the  man  who  did  not  know 
the  poems  was  Hke  one  who  stands  with  his 
face  to  a  wall,  limited  in  his  view,  and  un- 
able to  advance.  '  But  those  poems  are  occupied 
w^ith  ceremonies  in  the  worship  of  ancestors,  and 
do  not  speak,  save  incidentally,  about  the  worship 
of  God,  and  indeed  seem  to  have  been  collected 
and  rewarded  by  kings  as  the  prize  poems  of  the 
various  provinces.-^  ^  Every  fifth  year  the  Son  of 
Heaven  made  a  progress  through  the  kingdom, 
when  the  grand  music-master  was  commanded  to 
lay  before  him  the  poems  of  the  different  states  as 
an  exhibition  of  the  manners  and  government  of  the 
people.'^  These  are  not  even  a  professed  revela- 
tion. Emperors  of  China  have  counted  it  their 
duty  to  write  commentaries  on  some  of  the  ancient 
books  of  Confucius,  —  especially  on  one  which 
inculcates  filial  piety, — and  in  this  and  in  many 
other  ways  Confucianism  is  proved  to  be  a  book- 
religion  ;  but  the  books  themselves  are  avow^edly 
human  books.  ^  They  do  not  profess  to  be  or  to 
contain  a  revelation.  They  speak  of  God's  work 
and  guidance  as  any  religious  man  might  do.'  ^ 

Taoism  is  in  the  same  position.     It  has  books, 
and  noble  books  they  are  in  many  respects.     They 

1  Legge,  Sacred  Books  of  the  East,  vol.  iii.  pp.  284,  302. 

2  Record  of  Rites,  p.  291  (compiled  B.C.  179-155). 
^  Legge,  Introduction,  p.  xx. 


24  WHAT  THE  BIBLE  CLAIMS  TO  BE.         [Lect.  i. 

teach  the  rehgion  of  a  simple  and  pure  life,  whose 
purity  begins  at  the  heart,  and  is  thence  diffused 
over  all  the  character.  But  althouo:h  lonof  subse- 
quent  centuries  ascribed  supernatural  greatness  to 
Laotse,  the  founder  of  Taoism,  and  though  in  our 
own  time  the  chief  of  the  sect  is  supposed  to 
exalt  and  to  depose  at  his  pleasure  both  gods  and 
men,  his  own  books,  like  those  of  Confucius, 
though  more  spiritual  than  his,  are  the  code  and 
the  conclusions  of  an  earnest  ethical  speculator, 
who  not  only  did  not  rest  his  system  upon  God's 
revelation,  but  who  all  but  ignored  God  in  every 
sense.  His  system  borrows  both  from  Confu- 
cianism and  Buddhism,  and  is  a  high  morality, 
with  grotesque  beHefs,  which  have  led  to  hiean 
and  debasing  observances.^ 

I  come  now  to  the  grandest  and  most  venerable 
of  all  to  which  we  have  access,  to  the  ^io-antic 
system  of  Brahmanism,  which  does  claim  to  be  a 
revelation,  with  words  coming  from  the  breath  of 
Brahma.2     Indian  sages  tell  us  that  by  the  divine 

^  See  Legge's  Introduction,  Part  III. 

2  Indian  philosophers  and  commentators  have  studied  the  subject  of 
revelation  and  inspiration  in  all  its  bearings  as  connected  with  their 
sacred  faith,  and  the  subtlest  questions  of  the  possible  relations  of 
evidence,  whether  internal  or  external  evidence,  to  a  divine  revelation 
are  handled  with  exhaustive  ability  and  subtlety.  There  are  curious 
disquisitions  upon  the  difficulty  of  regarding  the  Vedic  hymns  as 
eternal  when  the  words  of  which  they  consist  are  necessarily  tem- 
poral ;  and  recent  commentators  say  that  the  Eishis  {i.e.  the  poets)  only 
saw  the  hymns  in  the  Vedas  which  had  existed  from  eternity.  The  most 
systematic,  interesting,  and  suggestive  treatment  of  the  whole  subject 


Lect.  I.]  THE  VEDIC  SCRIPTURES.  25 

word  contained  in  the  Vedas  the  world  was  made, 
the  word,  or  words,  being  eternal,  older  than 
the  creation.^  The  Brahman  alone  may  teach 
the  sacred  books,  which,  however,  all  men — save 
Sudras — must  commit  to  memory.^  For  Sudras 
and  women  an  inferior  revelation  has  been  pro- 
vided ;  but  all  the  others  of  the  race  are  engaged 
from  early  boyhood,  with  infinite  pains  and  care, 
embedding  in  their  memories  the  holy  words,  which 
for  many  centuries  were  unw^ritten,  and  are  still 
found  as  accurately  in  the  mouths  of  village  priests 
as  in  manuscript  or  in  printed  book.  One  thinks 
of  Deuteronomy  with  its  injunction  :  '  These  words, 
which  I  command  thee  this  day,  shall  be  in  thine 
heart :  and  thou  shalt  teach  them  diligently  unto 
thy  children,  and  shalt  talk  of  them  when  thou 
sittest  in  thine  house,  and  when  thou  walkest  by 
the  way,  and  when  thou  liest  down,  and  when 
thou  risest  up.  And  thou  shalt  bind  them  for  a 
sign  upon  thy  hand,  and  they  shall  be  as  frontlets 
between  thine  eyes.  And  thou  shalt  write  them 
upon  the  posts  of  thy  house,  and  on  thy  gates' 
(Deut.  vi.  6).  Here,  at  last,  we  are  ready  to  say 
we  find  a  religion  resting  upon  a  book  as  that  of 

of  the  Vedas  from  this  point  of  view  is  in  Dr.  John  Muir's  Sanskrit 
Texts,  vol.  iii.  See  also  Ballantyne's  Christianity  contrasted  with  Hindu 
Philosophy  for  a  view  of  recent  speculations,  p.  192  ff. 

^  See  Dr.  John  Muir's  Sanskrit  Texts,  vol.  iii.  p.  71. 

^  See  also  Colebrooke's  Misc.  Essays,  vol.  i.  p.  305  ff.  See 
also  Miiller's  History  of  Ancient  Sanskrit  Literature,  pp.  119,  3G4, 
388. 


26  WHAT  THE  BIBLE  CLAIMS  TO  BE.         [Lect.  t. 

Israel  rested,  and  using  the  book  as  Moses  enjoined 
the  law  to  be  used.^ 

But  it  is  not  so  upon  closer  inspection.  Those 
customs  and  injunctions,  this  deifying  of  the 
sacred  books,  are  the  growth  of  later  years.  We 
pass  up  through  the  Upanishads  or  philosophy  of 
Brahmanism,  through  the  Brahraanas  or  cere- 
monial and  ritual  of  Brahmanism,  to  the  Yedic 
hymns  on  which  the  whole  fabric  rests,  and  we 
find  that  while  the  later  books — commentaries, 
meditations,  and  regulations  —  do  claim  in  the 
most  emphatic  terms  divine  sanction  for  the 
Vedic  hymns,  those  hymns  claim  a  very  different 
position  for  themselves.  We  find  the  Bishis  (or 
authors  of  those  hymns)  appealing  to  the  deities, 
and  claiming  favour  because  they  have  succeeded 
in  making  a  good  hymn,  as  men  make  a  car, 
Rig-Veda,  iv.  16,  20.  ^0  Indra  [do  this  for  him], 
who  has  generated  for  thee  a  new  and  exhilarating 
hymn,  springing  from  an  intelligent  mind,  an 
ancient  mental  product,  full  of  sacred  truth'  {Rig- 
Veda,  viii.  84).  Some  of  the  writers  do  claim  a 
divine  influence  when  making  their  hymns,  which 
they  themselves,  curiously  enough,  praise  as  excel- 
lent, sometimes  saying  that  the  juice  of  the  Soma 
exhilarated    them  ;     and    several   of    them   claim 


1  The  Koran  similarly  enjoins  on  men  to  rise  in  the  early  night  and 
learn  to  recite  the  Koran  with  well-measured  recitation.  See  Sura 
Ixxiii. 


Lect.  I.]    VEDIC  INSPIRATION  NOT  REVELATION.  27 

inspiration  from  their  predecessors;  but  in  all 
those  cases  the  inspiration  and  invocation  are  like 
that  which  Homer  courted  from  the  Muse  in 
words  Milton  did  not  disdain  to  echo.  In  a 
hesitating  ay  ay,  at  some  complacent  moment,  the 
poets  said  that  some  god  —  never  the  Supreme 
Brahma,  the  uncreated  and  eternal  god,  but  some 
inferior  god — had  enabled  him  to  sing  ;^  not  even 
once,  however,  did  he  claim  to  have  been  the 
utterer  of  a  revelation.  In  truth,  the  ancient 
idea  of  inspiration  w^as  as  different  from  that  of 
revelation  as  in  our  own  day.  The  Yedas  are 
often  trifling,  sometimes  lofty,  but  there  is  some- 
thing grotesque  in  the  attempt  to  regard  them  as 
a  revelation  ;  and  it  is  an  attempt  which  cannot 
survive  a  perusal  of  the  original  hymns  them- 
selves. 

The  religion  of  the  Modes  and  Persians,  who 
overthrew  Babylon,  is  known  as  Zoroastrianism  or 
Parsism,  and  although  its  adherents,  even  in  India, 
are  now  few  and  diminished,  Avhile  in  Persia  it  is 
not  held  save  by  the  population  of  a  few  villages,  it 
claims  both  regard  and  respect  because  of  its  influ- 
ence upon  other  faiths.  Some  Christian  writers  have 
even  given  it  the  credit  of  remoulding  Hebrew 
beliefs  and  practices.  Lessing  compares  the  experi- 
ences of  Israel  under  the  Persians  to  that  of  a  child 
who  goes  from  home  and  finds  that  other  children 

^  Dr.  Muir's  Sanskrit  Texts,  vol.  iii.  p.  180. 


28  AYHAT  THE  BIBLE  CLAIMS  TO  BE.        [Lect.  i. 

know  more  than  himself;^  but  the  undoubted 
change  effected  during  the  captivity  would  be 
more  fittingly  ascribed  to  the  discipline  of  the 
exile,  which  was  foretold  as  what  would  bring 
about  national  religious  reform  (Deut.  xxvii., 
XXX.).  There  is  much  that  is  attractive  in  the 
noble  creed  of  the  Avesta,  which  is  said  to  be 
only  a  fragment  of  the  sacred  books  of  the  Parsis, 
the  rest  having  been  burned  or  lost  in  troublous 
times.  In  several  respects  it  comes  nearer  to  the 
Bible,  as  claiming  revelation,  than  any  other  non- 
biblical  religion,  with  the  exception  of  Moham- 
medanism. But  even  when  we  find  it  stated  that 
Ormazd  (or  the  good  god)  revealed  certain 
things  to  Zarathustra  (Zoroaster),  we  have  to 
notice  how  the  revelation  betrays  its  human 
origin  by  stating,  with  unvarying  repetition,  that 
man  always  asked  the  question,  and  that  the 
revelation  was  God's  answer.  This  is  little  like 
the    Bible,    where    we    see   how    God    sought   out 

^  Lessing  says  of  the  experience  of  Israel  under  the  Persians :  '  As 
yet  the  Jewish  people  had  reverenced  in  their  Jehovah  rather  the 
mightiest  than  the  wisest  of  all  gods ;  as  yet  they  had  rather  feared 
Him  as  a  jealous  God  than  loved  Him.  .  .  .  [But  now]  Instead  of,  as 
hitherto,  appreciating  Him  in  contrast  with  the  miserable  idols  of  the 
small  neighbouring  peoples  with  whom  they  lived  in  constant  rivalry, 
they  began,  in  captivity  under  the  wise  Persians,  to  measure  Him 
against  the  "Being  of  all  Beings,"  such  as  a  more  disciplined  reason 
recognised  and  reverenced.  .  .  .  Since  the  Jews  by  this  time,  through 
the  medium  of  the  pure  Persian  doctrine,  recognised  in  their  Jehovah 
not  simply  the  greatest  of  all  national  deities,  but  God,  etc' — Education 
of  the  Human  Race,  §§  34,  35,  39.  For  a  similar,  and,  I  believe,  exagge- 
rated view  of  the  power  and  value  of  Zoroastrianism,  see  Milne's  Lecture 
in  Faiths  of  the  World:  St.  Giles''  Lectures,  2d  series. 


Lect.  iJ  religion  of  THE  AVESTA.  29 

man,  and  lifted  him  up,  and  sustained  him,  and 
taught  him  to  desire  and  to  hope,  and  trained 
him  and  prepared  him,  till  in  the  fulness  of  time 
the  Saviour  was  sent  to  unite  him  ^yith  God  for 
ever.  This  also  has  to  be  noticed,  that  the  myths 
of  the  Avesta  are  either  derived  from  the  myths 
of  the  Yeda,  or  from  an  older  .source,  Avhich  was 
also  the  parent  of  the  Vedic  religion,  and  that 
the  Yedic  hymns  themselves,  which  are  far  older 
than  the  Avesta,  do  not,  as  we  have  seen,  claim 
to   be    a   revelation,    so    that    the    later    religfion, 

'  CD  ^ 

which  is  the  child  or  the  younger  brother  of 
Brahmanism,  can  scarcely  make  such  a  claim  with 
success.-^  Even  if  it  made  such  a  claim,  its  mean 
view  of  God's  holiness,  its  inadequate  estimate  of 
man's  depravity,  its  often  degrading  and  never 
more  than  human  requirements  intimated  to  man  in 
order  that  he  may  attain  to  holiness,  its  frequently 
filthy  ritual  (even  though  it  be  more  concerned 
with  cleanliness  than  with  holiness),  would  com- 
bine to  show  how  unable  it  is  to  bear  close  com- 
parison with  the  Old  Testament,  not  to  speak  of 
the  lSrew.2 

"When    Brahmanism    had    degenerated    into    an 

1  See  Darmesteter's  Transl  of  the  Zend  Avesta,  Fargards  xviii.  and 
xix.,  and  Introduction,  §  41.  Also  Hang's  Essays  on  the  Language, 
Writings,  and  Religion  of  the  Parsis.  '  The  Zoroastriau  religion  arose 
out  of  a  vital  struggle  against  the  form  which  the  Brahmanical  religion 
had  assumed  at  a  certain  earlj  period.' 

*  See  this  sharply  brought  out  in  Dr.  John  Wilson's  Parsl  ReligioUy 
as  contained  in  the  Zend  Avesta. 


30  WHAT  THE  BIBLE  CLAIMS  TO  BE.        [Lect.  i. 

empty  ceremonial,  and  men's  minds  were  burdened 
with  the  gods  many  and  lords  many  of  the  ancient 
creed  of  India,  Sakya  Muni,  the  enlightened  sage, 
— the  Buddha, — arose  and  made  a  great  revolt. 
He  preached  a  pure  life,  a  life  of  pity  and  of 
love ;  he  had  no  patience  with  the  piety  that  was 
invoking  idols  for  help  to  oneself,  when  the  sick 
and  the  sorrowful,  and  the  poor  of  our  human 
brotherhood,  are  in  need  at  our  door  and  at  our 
hand.  The  religion  which  he  founded,  which 
holds  in  its  thrall  one-third  of  the  human  race, 
has  greatly  changed  since  its  founder  lived  under 
the  Bo  Tree,  or  with  his  few  disciples  preached 
the  religion  of  self-denial  for  others'  sake,  and  the 
extirpation  of  all  passions.  It  has  now  legends 
attached  to  its  great  founder's  name,  and  it  has 
books  in  abundance ;  but  a  religion  which  neither 
recognised  God  nor  soul,  though  it  probably 
denied  neither,  cannot  claim  to  be  founded  on 
revelation,^  and  it  does  not  therefore  compare 
with  Judaism  or  with  Christianity. 

Of  the  only  remaining  religion — Mohammedan- 
ism— it  is  not  necessary  to  speak.  Its  claim  to 
be  a  revelation  is  undoubted ;  but  it  is  so 
obviously  a  barefaced  imitation  of  the  Bible  — 
both  of  the  Old  Testament  and  of  the  New — 
that  we  need  not  tarry  over  it.     Though  it  con- 

^  The  main  objections  of  Brahmans  to  it  are  that  it  is  not  a  revelation. 
See  Muller,  Hist,  of  Sansk.  Lit.  p.  81. 


Lect.  I.]         SCRIPTURE  CLAIM  UNPARALLELED.  31 

tains  great  and  salutary  truths  regarding  God, 
they  are  obviously  taken  from  our  Scriptures.^ 
It  remains,  however,  the  only  religion  outside  of 
the  Bible  which  claims  beyond  doubt  to  have 
been  a  revelation  from  God. 

Our  hasty  survey  has  given  us  ground  for 
doubting  the  sweeping  statement  of  Professor 
Max  Miiller,  which,  though  in  guarded  phrase, 
undoubtedly  suggests  that  all  religions  claim,  as 
Judaism  and  Christianity  claim,  to  arise  from  a 
divine  revelation.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  we  see 
that  none  of  the  books  of  other  religions  —  save 
the  Mohammedan  Koran — make  a  claim  that  can 
be  said  to  be  parallel  to  that  of  the  Bible. 

But  while  we  think  there  may  be  vindicated 
for  the  Bible  the  existence  of  a  claim  which,  both 
in  kind  and  in  degree,  is  special  to  it,  we  are 
well  aware  that  the  existence  of  such  a  claim  is 
not  tantamount  to  its  establishment.  What  we 
have  said  to-night  bears  only  on  the  amount  of 
acceptance  demanded  by  the  Bible  from  those 
who  accept  it,  and  establishes  this  conclusion  at 
least,  that  any  mere  expression  of  respect  for  the 
good  intentions,  or  for  the  ability,  or  for  the  high 

^  Mohammed  at  first  was  content  to  identify  his  religion  with  Judaism 
and  Christianity.  He  often  speaks  of  Moses  as  the  man,  and  Israel  as 
the  people,  to  whom  'God  gave  the  Book.'  In  bis  later  times  he 
attempted  to  justify  his  position — and  his  immoralities — by  new  and 
special  revelations ;  but  even  in  them  he  was  an  imitator  of  the  Bible. 
See  Suras  xxxi.,  xlv.,  xlvi.,  Ivii.  See  Sir  W.  Muir's  The  Koran,  and 
Dr.  Marcus  Dods'  Mahomet,  Buddha,  and  Christ. 


32  WHAT  THE  BIBLE  CLAIMS  TO  BE.         [Lect.  i. 

intuition  of  its  various  writers,  will  not  satisty  its 
imperious  demand.  It  claims  to  stand  alone  in  its 
authoritative  position  as  the  word  of  the  living  and 
true  God.  Its  voice  still  is  :  'To  you,  0  men, — 
all  men, — I  call.'  'God  hath  spoken  to  you  by 
His  Son.'  'The  gospel  is  come  to  you,  as  unto 
all  the  world ;'  and  upon  every  one  who  hears 
there  is  laid  the  old  and  ever  new  obligation  to 
go  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  into  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  It  will  not  be  put  off  with  defer- 
ence or  with  respect  when  obedience  is  demanded. 

But  this  does  not  mean  that  the  Bible  should 
be  shielded  by  its  believers  from  examination  or 
inquiry.  To  make  any  attempt  at  shielding  our 
sacred  books  would  of  course  be  vain.  These  are 
no  times  to  keep  a  holy  thing  in  some  sanctuary, 
where  only  an  official  or  a  believer  can  search  or 
know  it.  But,  moreover,  if  in  our  most  secret 
thoughts  we  had  any  idea  that  such  shielding 
were  even  desirable,  we  should  be  in  God's  sight 
the  enemies  of  His  truth.  '  I  speak  as  to  wise 
men,  judge  ye  what  I  say'  (1  Cor.  x.  15),  said 
the  fearless  and  frank  apostle.  '  I  think  myself 
happy  that  I  am  to  make  my  defence  before  thee 
this  day'  (Acts  xxvi.  2),  were  his  words  when 
called  to  expound  his  gospel  to  one  who  may  be 
described  as  an  educated  sceptic. 

Modern  questioning  requires   to  be  met  in   the 


Lect.  I.]  MODERN  QUESTIONING.  33 

same  spirit.  There  are  indeed  some  of  the  ques- 
tioners who  arrogate  to  themselves  a  monopoly 
of  the  title  of  honest  inquirers,  and  who,  with 
curiously  suicidal  dogmatism,  assume  that  all 
whose  position  is  one  of  confident  belief  must  have 
lacked  either  ability  to  inquire  or  honesty  to  avow 
the  inevitable  conclusion.  There  are  probably  some 
others  who  are  moved  by  a  conscious  desire  to  find 
Christianity  untrue,  who  love  darkness  rather  than 
light  because  their  deeds  are  evil.  But  there 
are  others,  and  many  of  them,  who  are  earnestly 
examining  the  very  foundations  of  the  Christian 
faith,  and  who  would  undoubtedly  be  glad  to  have 
assurance  that  it  is  true;  for  they  desire  nothing 
better  than  to  walk  in  the  truth.  And  there  are 
others  among  ourselves  who,  never  having  searched 
into  the  principles  of  the  things  they  most  surely 
believe,  are  unable  to  encounter  those  who  subject 
the  Christian  books  to  the  same  kind  of  test  as 
our  missionaries  and  others  who  meet  Moham- 
medans, or  Hindus,  or  Chinese,  apply  to  the 
sacred  books  of  the  faiths  of  the  East.  I  believe 
with  all  my  heart  that  the  New  Testament  can 
bear  the  fiercest  light  of  modern  investigation. 
I  believe  that  the  unparalleled  vigour  of  the 
critical  assaults  which  have  been  made  upon  it 
since  the  nineteenth  century  began,  have  not 
brought  down  a  single  tower  of  its  citadel.  And 
I  therefore  believe  that  the  inquiry  on  which  we 


34  WHAT  THE  BIBLE  CLAIMS  TO  BE.         [Lect.  i. 

are  entering  will  not  end  without  our  seeing  good 
grounds  for  granting  the  claim  of  our  sacred  books 
to  be  regarded  as  canonical, — that  is  to  say,  they 
will  be  seen  to  be  the  words  of  Him  who  said  : 
'  The  words  which  I  speak  unto  you,  they  are 
spirit,  and  they  are  life'  (John  vi.  63).  This  can 
only  be  true  if  the  Spirit  quickens  them.  May 
He  come  to  us  each  and  every  one ! 


LECTUEE  II. 

CHARACTERISTICS  OF  THOSE  SCRIPTURES  WHICH  CLAIM 
TRUTH,  UNITY,  AND  AUTHORITY. 

We  now  endeavour  to  pursue  the  inquiry  into  the 
characteristics  of  those  Scriptures  which  claim 
truth,  unity,  and  authority. 

And  we  have  to  remark — 1.  That  while  the 
Scriptures  claim  to  he  the  Word  of  God,  given  hy 
iTispiration  of  His  Spirit,  they  do  not  enable  us  to 
ascertain  the  nature  or  the  extent  of  inspiration. 
It  is  quite  true  that,  speaking  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, St.  Paul  ascribes  inspiration  to  the  Scriptures. 
But  in  the  words  of  St.  Paul  we  have,  first  of  all, 
a  grammatical  difficulty  illustrated  by  our  Author- 
ized Version  as  compared  with  that  of  the  recent 
Revisers.  The  words  may  mean,  as  in  the  Author- 
ized Version,  '  All  Scripture  is  given  by  inspira- 
tion of  God,  and  is  profitable,'  or,  as  in  the 
Pevised  Version,  '  Every  Scripture  inspired  of 
God  is  also  profitable.'  There  being  no  substan- 
tive verb  [is]  in  the  original,  we  are  left  to  supply 
it  where  it  may  seem  best.  And  the  grammatical 
difficulty  which  thus  arises  as  to  its  proper  place 


36  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  THE  BIBLE.      [Lect.  ii. 

is  illustrated  by  those  two  renderings  in  our  own 
tongue.  But  even  if  it  be  pleaded,  as  it  may  well 
be,  that,  when  taken  in  connection  with  the  con- 
text, the  words  in  either  case  mean  to  claim  for 
all  the  sacred  writings,  which  Timothy  had  known 
from  his  childhood,  at  once  inspiration  and  such 
profitableness  as  to  make  the  man  of  God  com- 
pletely furnished  unto  every  good  work,  there  still 
remains  the  difficulty  of  interpretation.  It  centres 
in  the  Greek  adjective  translated  'given  by  in- 
spiration of  God,'  or  'inspired  of  God.'  It  is  a 
great  word,  an  invaluable  word.  It  claims  for  all 
the  Bible  known  to  Timothy  that  the  Supreme 
Spirit  breathed  it.  But  Avhen  we  try  to  realize 
what  this  means,  we  find  that  the  knowledge  is 
too  high  for  us.  The  word  is  a  lock,  not  a  key. 
What  does  it  mean  ?  We  must  find  the  answer 
in  Scripture.  Other  Scriptures  may  explain  it,  but 
it  certainly  does  not  explain  the  other  Scriptures. 

But  do  other  Scriptures  explain  it  ?  Do 
they  tell  us  what  in  every  case  was  meant  by 
speaking  or  writing  words  which  were  '  breathed 
of  God '  ?  I  think  not.  It  has  not  been  un- 
common to  attempt  to  distinguish  between  the 
different  degrees  of  ins2^iration,  and  to  write  upon 
the  inspiration  of  suggestion,  or  of  superintendence, 
or  of  dictation.  This  distinction  has  been  derived 
from  the  Jews,  who  carried  it  out  so  thoroughly  as  to 
ascribe  difierent  degrees  of  authority  to  the  various 


Lect.  II.]      JEWISH  GRADES  OF  INSPIRATION.  37 

sections  of  their  Bible  on  the  ground  of  their 
resulting  from  various  grades  of  inspiration.  They 
anticipated  many  critics  of  our  own  day  in  attempt- 
ing to  arrange  the  holy  writings  according  to  their 
supposed  importance.  When  they  asked  the  new 
Rabbi  what  was  in  his  opinion  the  great  command- 
ment of  the  law,  they  sought  to  make  him  take  a 
side  in  their  controversies  of  this  kind.  Their 
threefold  division  of  the  Bible  encouraged  them 
in  this  :  Moses  and  the  law  ranking  high  above 
the  others  ;  for  Moses,  they  said,  was  made  par- 
taker of  divine  revelations  with  open,  wakeful  eye 
looking  direct  on  God,  to  whom  he  could  at  all 
times  refer  (Num.  vii.  89),  while  to  all  other  prophets 
were  sent  dreams  or  visions  or  angelic  messengers, 
so  that  they  were  not  in  their  natural  state,  but  in 
an  astonied  or  rapt  condition,  when  the  breath  of 
the  Spirit  came  upon  them. 

In  the  same  way  Matthew  Arnold,  in  his  many 
beautifully  verbose  books,  tells  us  at  once  what 
is  the  essential  portion  of  any  part  of  Scripture ; 
what  was  St.  Paul's  origfinal  meaningr  in  some  of 
his  doctrines  (say  of  Kesurrection,  see  p.  83  of  St. 
Paul  and  Protestantism),  and  how  he  grew  out  of 
any  physical  meaning  of  the  phrases  he  used, 
spiritualizing  them  altogether,  though  he  himself 
never  understood  how  he  had  changed,  which, 
however,  Mr.  Arnold  happily  explains  for  him  ; 
and  how  most  unhappily  '  Paul  was  led  into  diffi- 


38  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  THE  BIBLE.       [Lect.  ii. 

culty  by  the  tendency  [which  we  have  already 
noticed  as]  making  his  real  imperfection  both  as 
a  thinker  and  as  a  ruler — the  tendency  to  Judaize.' 

All  this  means  that  Mr.  Arnold  has  decided 
what  true  Christianity  is,  apart  from  St.  Paul,  and 
proceeds  to  adjust  the  apostle  to  himself,  flouting 
the  great  Christian  teacher  at  last  when  his  words 
will  not  bend  in  the  critic's  deft  handling. 

The  world  moves  in  circles,  and  the  traditions 
and  theories  which  are  buried  for  generations  re- 
appear in  the  conflicts  of  some  subsequent  time. 
There  are  many  whose  various  theories  are  only 
applications  of  their  principle  that  the  degree  of 
the  inspiration,  and  therefore  of  the  authority  or 
the  importance  of  any  part  of  Scripture,  is  to  be 
ascertained  by  estimating  the  amount  of  its  insight 
into  the  essence  of  Christianity.  We  may  take  a 
living  theologian  for  example.  '  The  importance 
of  any  particular  part  of  the  Bible  depends,'  says 
Schenkel,  *  on  the  closeness  of  its  relation  to 
Christ.'  He  goes  on  to  say  that  the  highest  place 
is  occupied  by  the  Gospels,  the  highest  rank  among 
the  Gospels  belonging  to  that  of  St.  John.  In 
the  second  rank  stand  the  Apostolical  Epistles  ; 
those  of  St.  Paul  and  St.  John  standing  before 
those  of  St.  Peter,  and  these,  again,  before  those  of 
St.  James  and  St.  Jude.  In  the  third  rank  comes 
the  Apocalypse.  ^  Scripture  which  has  reference  to 
Christ  as  the  ceiitral  point  of  the  history  of  redemption 


Lect.  II.]    SOME  SCRIPTURES  SUPPLEMENTARY.  39 

IS  in  its  immediate  divine  origin  the  Word  of  God, 
It  is  true  both  that  Scripture  is  the  Word  of  God^ 
and  that  the  "Word  of  God  is  in  Scripture.  On 
the  other  hand,  it  is  an  error,  and  in  the  highest 
degree  misleading,  to  regard  each  single  utterance 
or  isolated  text  of  Scripture  as  the  Word  of  God.'  ^ 
We  might  well  pause  before  adopting  theories 
which  are  chargeable  with  the  arrogance  of  assum- 
ing that  the  critic  is  a  competent  judge  of  the 
amount  of  spiritual  insight  enjoyed  by  a  writer 
in  the  Bible.  We  might  grant  to  him  that  books 
when  judged  by  their  own  claims  will  fall  into 
ranks,  so  that,  for  example.  Proverbs  would  fur- 
nish no  such  utterance  for  the  higher  spiritual 
emotions  of  man  as  the  Psalms  give,  because  the 
Proverbs — even  in  the  stately  tenderness  of  the 
opening  chapters — are  only  meditations  upon  life 
addressed  to  man,  while  the  Psalms  are  divinely 
prompted  words  ascending  to  God.  So,  too,  the 
Epistle  of  James  is  not  intelligible  in  itself,  and 
requires  as  a  basis  such  a  revelation  of  the  life 
and  words  of  Christ  as  we  find  in  the  Gospels. 
It  is  of  its  nature  supplementary,  just  as  the  book 
of  Proverbs  is.  But  that  is  quite  another  thing 
from  our  proceeding  to  cut  Scripture  into  pieces 
according  to  what  we  believe  to  be  the  amount 
of  spiritual  insight  which  it  shows.     Moreover,  to 

^  See  Inspiration,  by  a  Layman  [Dr.  John  Muir],  with  a  Preface  by 
H.  B.  Wilson,  p.  234. 


40  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  THE  BIBLE.       [Lect.  ii. 

ail  such  theories,  whatever  modification  they  may 
assume,  one  fatal  objection  applies.  They  are  not 
based  upon  Scripture  itself.  They  are  an  evolu- 
tion from  human  consciousness ;  and  they  are 
impelled  by  a  baseless  idea  that  it  is  needful  to 
have  some  theory  of  the  grades  of  inspiration. 
There  is  not  in  Scripture  any  trace  of  one  writer 
subordinating  himself  to  another.  There  is  no 
authority  there  for  one  man  setting  John  above 
all  the  rest,  and  another  setting  Paul  or  Peter. 
The  Divine  Spirit  hath  spoken  '  by  diverse 
portions  and  in  divers  manners/  that  all  the 
diversities  of  the  human  family  may  find  some 
portion  specially  adapted  to  them.  Strength  for 
the  strong,  and  ^  pleadings  for  the  shame  and 
feebleness  '  of  them  that  have  no  might ;  heroic 
deeds  to  stir  the  souls  of  the  young  and  ardent ; 
spiritual  musings  to  suffuse  the  spirit  of  the  medi- 
tative :  to  each  one  of  His  children  the  Great 
Father  on  whom  wait  all  their  eyes  gives  meat 
in  due  season  (Ps.  cxlv.  15).  The  revealing  and 
redeeming  Son  has  told  us  which  is  the  first  and 
great  commandment  of  the  ancient  law,  and  of  all 
the  laws  that  have  ever  come  from  God,  and  He 
has  told  us  that  to  know  the  true  God  and  Jesus 
Christ  whom  He  hath  sent  is  eternal  life  ;  but 
He  did  not  come  to  establish  a  hierarchy  of 
inspiration  in  His  Church.  We  cannot  and  dare 
not  say  that   there   were    not   various   degrees    of 


Lect.  II.]       BIBLE  IXSPIRATION  NOT  GRADED.  41 

force  and  fulness  in  the  effusion  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
in  ancient  or  in  modern  times.  We  may  believe 
that  the  delivery  of  the  Decalogue  stood  by  itself 
a  direct  objective  revelation  to  man,  not  through 
any  other  man  ;  but  we  do  most  strenuously  affirm 
that  there  is  no  warrant  in  the  Bible  for  attempt- 
ing to  grade  the  inspiration  of  those  whose  writings 
compose  it,  or  to  define  the  nature  of  the  influence 
under  which  they  wrote.  Unless  from  the  divine 
side,  it  is  impossible  that  such  a  gradation  can  be 
made  ;  and  on  the  divine  side  who  shall  take  his 
stand  ?  On  the  human  side  all  the  writers  claim 
truth,  unity,  and  authority. 

It  is  wonderful  how  little  we  learn  from  Scrip- 
ture itself  as  to  the  way  in  which  truth  was  made 
known.  '  By  angelic  appearances,  dreams,  visions, 
ecstasy,  voices  from  heaven,  and  symbolic  acts,'  the 
divine  thoughts  were  conveyed  to  men.^  Sometimes 
also  there  seems  to  have  come,  as  from  within  the 
mind,  a  divine  impulse  that  carried  the  prophet 
before  it  (Num.  xxiii.  5,  20,  but  comp.  xxiv.  4).^ 
The  variety  of  modes  is  very  great,  but  the  result  is 
the  same.  ^  No  prophecy  ever  came  by  the  will 
of  man ;  but  men  spake  from  God,  being  moved 
by  the  Holy  Ghost'  (2  Pet.  i.  21). 

^  Lee  on  Inspiration,  p.  113. 
^  '  Like  the  Midianite  of  old, 

Who  stood  on  Zophim  heaven-controlled, 

I  feel  within  mine  aged  breast 

A  power  that  will  not  be  repressed.' — Walter  Scott. 


42  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  THE  BIBLE.       [Lect.  ii. 

2.  This  heing  so,  it  is  vain  to  Jiold  that  ive  are 
tender  any  necessity  to  have  some  theory  of  inspira- 
tion. It  is  vain,  because  we  cannot  hope  to  make 
bricks  without  straw.  We  cannot  build  up  a  doc- 
trine when  God  has  not  revealed  it.  It  is  under 
the  influence  of  a  false  idea  of  the  necessity  of 
some  theory  of  inspiration  that  so  many  have  tried 
to  adjust  the  facts  to  the  theory  which  gained  their 
support. 

This  is  obvious  if  we  ask  to  what  inspiration 
amounted  ?  what  was  the  eflect  of  it  upon  the 
resulting  Word  ?  There  is  much  to  be  said,  on  the 
one  hand,  for  the  position  of  those  who  hold  that 
Scripture,  if  it  be  the  Word  of  God,  must  have 
been  absolutely  and  unalterably  true  in  every 
word,  syllable,  and  letter  as  it  was  first  given  to 
and  by  the  inspired  men.  If  any  portion  of  the 
revealing  Word  be  erroneous,  say  they,  so  may  all  ; 
and  thus  we  have  no  word  of  prophecy  whereunto 
we  do  well  to  take  heed.  If  the  true  theory  be 
that  the  Bible  contains  the  Word  of  God, — not 
that  the  Bible  is  the  Word  of  God, — then  who  is 
to  settle  how  much  is  shell  and  what  is  kernel  ? 
how  deep  is  the  rind  to  be  peeled  off*  ere  we  reach 
the  divine  core  of  the  revelation  ? 

But  there  is  much  also  to  be  said  for  those  who 
plead,  on  the  other  hand,  that  so  stringent  a  theory 
leads  into  unnecessary  difliculties,  making  the 
strength  of  the  chain  not  greater  than  that  of  its 


Lect.  II.]    OPPOSING  THEORIES  OF  INSPIRATION.  43 

weakest  link,  and  so  destroying  all  the  power  of 
Scripture  if  even  one  error  can  be  made  manifest 
in  any  portion  of  the  Canon,  hoAvever  subsidi- 
ary. They  hold  that  it  is  not  in  every  detail, 
but  in  the  whole  scope  of  the  Scripture,  we  shall 
find  the  revelation  by  which  to  live.  They  say 
that  this  is  according  to  the  analogy  of  the  divine 
procedure.  God  reveals  Himself  in  His  works  so 
clearly  that  an  honest  mind  can  be  convinced  of 
His  infinite  power  and  Godhead;  but  yet  not  so 
as  that  the  enemy  has  never  marred  the  revelation 
— not  so  as  that  everything  which  happens  in  the 
world  is  surely  a  representation  of  God.  The 
human  passions  are  not  the  image  of  the  holy 
God ;  decay  and  death  are  not  necessary  concomi- 
tants of  life ;  errors  are  not  necessary  parts  of 
thought.  All  these,  which  actually  exist,  are  in 
themselves  interruptions  of  the  revelation  of  God 
written  in  humanity  and  in  providence  as  a  whole  ; 
and  yet  over  all,  and  in  all,  and  through  all,  God 
works,  causing  all  things  to  work  together  for  good 
to  them  that  love  Him,  making  the  very  wrath  of 
the  wicked  to  praise  Him.  If  to  all  this  we  reply 
that  the  Word  of  God  is  given  for  the  very  purpose 
of  guiding  us  unerringly  through  the  perplexities 
of  life,  so  that  if  it  be  itself  mixed  with  error,  or 
even  if  error  clouds  it,  we  have  no  guide,  the 
rejoinder  readily  comes.  It  is  an  argument  from 
analogy,    from   the    spiritual    experience    of  God's 


44  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  THE  BIBLE.       [Lect.  ii. 

eliildren.  It  is  to  the  effect  that  God's  Spirit  is 
the  author  of  all  true  life,  the  prompter  of  every 
holy  thought  and  purpose  ;  yet  not  so  that  we  can 
always  distinguish  God's  Spirit  from  our  own  in 
any  mental  state  into  which  we  may  come,  nor 
even  so  that  we  can  always  be  sure  that  fancy  or 
human  enthusiasm  is  not  conjoined  in  our  soul  with 
the  pure  suggestions  of  the  Spirit  of  God.  But 
notwithstanding  all  such  occasional  uncertainty, 
causing  us  to  walk  warily  and  to  examine  our 
ow^n  selves,  there  is  undoubtedly  a  Spirit  coming 
from  God,  according  to  His  promise.  Again, 
therefore,  they  ask  whether  the  analogy  may  not 
hold  in  the  written  Word  which  the  same  Spirit 
gave  ;  whether  it  may  not  be  our  duty,  the  very 
exercise  of  our  responsibility,  to  distinguish  in 
Scripture  the  human  from  the  divine,  the  tem- 
porary from  the  everlasting.  They  give  up  the 
idea  of  perfect  freedom  from  error  in  every  minute 
matter ;  but  they  own  no  error  in  the  Scripture  as 
a  whole,  which  they  believe  to  be  the  very  word  of 
the  living  God.^  They  do  not  succeed  in  making 
it  clear  to  others  that  they  regard  the  revelation 
of  God  in  the  Bible  as  the  authoritative  standard, 
— for  it  seems  to  many  that  the  ^  inner  light' 
which  they  have  is  really  their  supreme  authority, 

i  '  We  do  not  possess  a  Canon  that  is  absolutely  free  from  mistake, 
nor,  indeed,  do  we  require  it.  What  we  require  is  a  record  of  revela- 
tion absolutely  true,  and  that  we  possess  in  the  Scriptures '  (Auberlen  on 
Divine  Revelation,  p.  242). 


Lect.  II.]  NO  THEORY  NECESSARY.  45 

— but  they  themselves  declare  that  the  '  inner 
light '  has  been  awakened  and  is  regulated  by  the 
Spirit  speaking  through  the  written  Word,  so  that 
the  Word  is  the  standard,  and  the  light  within 
them  is  the  application  to  them  of  that  standard 
by  the  Spirit  of  God,  who  gave  it  at  the  first. 

There  is  much  to  be  said  on  both  sides ;  and 
within  the  limits  which  I  have  endeavoured  to 
indicate,  I  do  not  see  why  good  men  may  not  agree 
to  differ.  We  learn  from  those  whose  position  I 
have  last  described,  that  life  being  higher  than 
logic,  we  shall  do  ill  to  reproduce  the  weakness  of 
the  creeds  of  the  Eeformed  Churches,  which  try 
to  map  out  all  the  nature  and  work  of  God 
according  to  logical  inferences  from  intellectual 
statements ;  and  that  it  well  beseems  us  to  admit 
the  possibility  of  a  truth  of  intuition  which  does 
not  come  as  the  last  step  in  a  syllogism.  We 
learn  from  the  other  side  that  there  is  no  small 
danger  in  being  dogmatically  undogmatical  in 
declaring  that  a  book  is  true  as  a  whole,  while  in 
every  detail,  great  and  small,  it  is  liable  to  error. 
Errors,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  are  admitted  by  good 
men  on  all  sides  to  exist  in  the  books  as  we  now 
have  them,  due  in  most  cases  to  the  slips  of 
copyists,  but  yet  such  that  we  have  no  means  of 
removing  them.  The  fact  that  good  men  on  both 
sides  admit  the  existence  of  such  errors,  and  yet 
maintain  the  supreme  authority  of  Scripture,  may 


46  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  THE  BIBLE.       [Lect.  ii. 

warn  us  to  beware  of  dogmatism  on  either  side. 
It  may  teach  us  to  shrink  from  the  fierce  con- 
sistency of  the  advocates  of  verbal  dictation,  with- 
out drivinor  us  to  manifest  the  arroofance  of  those 
who  cut  and  carve  in  Holy  Writ  as  they  think 
fit, — as  thougfh  their  own  minds  were  the  hiofhest 
of  all  revelation, — as  though  they  were  sure  of 
this  one  thing  only,  that  there  is  neither  miracle 
nor  marvel  in  the  collection  of  documents  which 
have  '  turned  the  world  upside  down.' 

Instead  of  indulging  in  vain  speculations,  let  us 
proceed  inductively  to  search  the  Scriptures,  that 
we  may  attain  to  certain  principles  that  will  regu- 
late our  use  of  our  holy  books.  Those  principles 
will,  as  it  seems  to  me,  enable  us  to  hold  intelli- 
gently by  the  validity  of  the  claims  to  authority 
advanced  in  Scripture.  And  in  thus  proceeding 
we  remark  that — 

3.  Something  higher  than  ordinary  honesty  and 
accuracy  must  he  ascribed  to  the  writers  of  Scinj)- 
ture  if  their  writings  are  to  he  accepted  at  all. 
Many  tell  us  to  judge  Scripture  as  we  judge  any 
other  book.  But  if  we  do  so,  and  admit  its 
accuracy,  we  set  it  where  no  other  book  can  be 
set.  The  prophets  profess  to  predict  future  events. 
This  statement  involves  either  much  more  or  much 
less  than  ordinary  historical  trustworthiness, — much 
more  if  the  words  were  really  predictions,  much  less 
if  they  were  written  after  the  event,  and  falsely 


Lect.  II.]        HUMAN  AND  DIVINE  ELEMENTS.  47 

passed  off  as  predictions.  This  is  true  of  the  New 
Testament  as  well  as  of  the  Old.  The  fall  of 
Jerusalem  as  foretold  by  Jesus  Christ,  the  rela- 
tion of  the  fate  of  Israel  to  the  ingathering  of  the 
Gentiles  as  announced  by  St.  Paul  to  the  Homans, 
are  not  to  be  disposed  of  as  ordinary  statements 
of  a  historical  character. 

Nor  only  this.  If  we  accept  the  disci^Dles  as 
veracious  reporters  or  annalists,  who  truly  tell  what 
things  they  saw  and  heard,  then  they  had  higher 
gifts  than  mere  veracity,  because  they  claimed  to 
have  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  Comforter,  who  came 
after  Christ's  death,  is  said  to  have  inspired  the 
followers  of  Christ,  enabling  them  to  understand 
His  life  and  teachings,  and  guiding  them  into  all 
the  truth  (John  xvi.  13).  If,  then,  this  were  true, 
the  apostles  were  more  than  ordinary  historians. 
They  were  inspired  men,  speaking  of  what  they 
had  been  supernaturally  enabled  to  understand  and 
declare. 

4.  We  cannot  say  that  Scripture  in  any  part  is  only 
divine,  or,  07i  the  other  hand,  that  it  is  only  human. 
The  attempt,  which  was  at  one  time  common 
enough,  to  speak  of  Scripture  as  though  it  had 
been  dictated  by  the  Holy  Ghost  to  men  passively 
receiving  the  inspiration  and  transmitting  the  truth 
to  others,  as  some  lifeless  mechanical  instrument 
might,  is  now  universally  abandoned.  It  is  felt 
to  be  unnecessary.     God,  who  searcheth  the  heart 


48  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  THE  BIBLE.        [Lect.  ii. 

and  trieth  the  reins,  can  speak  througli  His  creature 
by  using  that  creature's  special  characteristics  ;  and 
even  if  the  "Word  were  wholly  His,  it  might 
naturally  bear  the  marks  of  the  human  speaker 
as  well.  The  truth  would  still  be  wholly  God's, 
whether  spoken  in  a  loud  voice  or  in  a  whisper, 
whether  by  lordly  Isaiah  or  by  Amos  the  herds- 
man. And  the  theory  is  more  than  unneces- 
sary— it  is  false  to  the  facts.  It  is  inconsistent 
with  the  exuberance  and  the  variety  of  life  which 
mark  Holy  Scripture.  The  idiosyncrasies  of  dif- 
ferent authors  come  out  as  clearly  in  the  Bible  as 
in  any  other  book.  The  Gospels  are  four  pictures 
of  Christ  taken  from  four  distinct  standpoints  ;  and 
since  Christians  began  interpreting,  it  has  been  the 
delight  of  interpreters  to  regard  each  of  the  four 
writers  as  symbolized  by  one  of  the  four  living 
creatures  of  the  ancient  vision  of  Ezekiel.  The 
eagle,  the  lion,  the  sacrificial  ox,  and  the  man  have 
been  accepted  as  the  symbols  of  the  cherubim 
whose  ^  faces  were  the  images  of  the  dispensation  of 
the  Son  of  God'  (Irenasus,  iii.  11,  8).^ 

When  we  read  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  we 
can  as  easily  understand  from  their  own  writings 

■^  Irenseus  reasons  that  as  there  are  four  winds,  four  zones,  so  there 
must  be  four  gospels  to  make  the  dispensation  complete.  He  assigns 
the  lion  to  John,  the  fatted  calf  to  Luke,  the  man  to  Matthew,  and  the 
eagle  to  Mark.  But  in  later  times  most  writers  follow  Jerome  and 
Augustine  in  referring  the  '  eagle '  to  John,  the  '  ox '  to  Luke,  Jerome 
assigning  the  '  man '  to  Matthew  and  the  '  lion '  to  Mark,  while  Augus- 
tine (less  rightly)  reverses  this  allocation. 


Lect.  II.]         HUMAN  AND  DIVINE  ELEMENTS.  49 

the  differences  of  character  in  Peter  and  Paal  and 
James  and  John,  in  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  and  Daniel, 
as  in  Herodotus  and  Thucydides,  in  Tacitus  and 
Livy.  The  human  elements  are  too  obvious  to  be 
overlooked. 

But  equally  so  are  the  divine.  Future  events 
were  foretold  and  a  coming  redemption  prefigured, 
things  beyond  the  ken  of  mortal  man  were  declared, 
all  witnessing  for  God  through  the  Spirit,  all  show- 
ing that  the  Supreme  Author  of  the  book  is  God 
Himself.  The  New  Testament  gives  us  a  formula 
by  which  to  express  the  truth  :  David  said  in  the 
Holy  Spirit,  or.  Well  spake  the  Holy  Ghost  through 
Esaias.  We  see  sometimes  the  divine,  sometimes 
the  human,  put  more  prominently  when  the  New 
Testament  is  citinof  the  Old.  Thus  the  same 
passage  in  Isaiah  which  tells  of  the  hardening  of 
the  heart  of  Israel  so  that  it  could  not  receive 
the  truth  is  quoted  by  St.  John  (xii.  41)  with  the 
words  :  ^  These  things  said  Isaiah ; '  while  St.  Paul, 
speaking  to  the  Jews  in  Pome,  says  :  ^  Well  spake 
the  Holy  Ghost  by  Isaiah  unto  your  fathers.'  So 
also  St.  Matthew  writes  that  Christ  on  one  occasion 
quoted  the  Fifth  Commandment,  saying :  '  For 
God  commanded '  (Matt.  xv.  4)  ;  while  in  the 
parallel  narrative  of  St.  Mark  we  read :  '  For 
Moses  said,  Honour  thy  father  and  thy  mother.'^ 

^  We  find  in  the  use  made  of  the  Old  Testament  in  the  New  many 
sifjnificant  facts.     There  are  275  passages  of  the  New  Testament  which 

D 


50  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  THE  BIBLE.        [Lect.  ii. 

We  cannot '  redd  the  marches '  between  the  human 
and  the  divine  in  Holy  Scripture.  Oela  iravra  koI  av- 
Opoo'TTtva  irdvTa} 

■  5.  Passing  from  the  subject  of  inspiration  to 
that  of  revelation,  tve  find  that  no  promise  is  made 
that  all  the  ivords  of  Jesus  or  of  His  apostles 
ivould  he  infallibly  and  miraculously  preserved. 
On   the    contrary,    John   tells    us   that   the  world 

are  considered  as  quotations  from  the  Olil,  Of  these,  65  agree  with  the 
original  Hebrew ;  37  agree  with  the  LXX.,  but  not  with  the  Hebrew  ; 
99  differ  from  both,  they  also  differing  from  each  other ;  77  differ  from 
both,  they  agreeing  with  each  other.  There  are  three  other  passages — 
John  vii.  38,  vii.  42,  and  Eph.  v.  14 — which  are  obviously  not  meant  to 
be  quotations,  but  condensations  of  or  allusions  to  several  well-known 
passages  of  Scripture.  (The  fullest  and  most  careful  information  on 
this  subject  is  to  be  found  in  Dr.  M 'Caiman  Turpie's  Old  Testament  in 
the  New.)  In  many  of  those  quotations  in  the  New  Testament  the 
changes  made  on  the  Old  Testament  are  very  slight,  not  amounting  to 
more  than  the  omission  or  transposition  of  a  word.  The  general  tenor 
of  the  New  Testament  is  that  it  rests  upon  or  grows  out  of  the  Old 
Testament.  See  Rom.  iii.  10  for  an  appeal  to  the  authority  of  five 
texts  of  the  Old  Testament  combined,  or  Mark  i.  2  for  an  illustration 
drawn  from  Mai.  iii.  1,  combined  with  Isaiah  xl.  3.  See  the  meaning  of 
Gen.  ii.  24  developed  and  made  more  emphatic  in  Matt.  xix.  5.  Compare 
1  Cor.  vi.  16,  Eph.  v.  31.  These  are  proofs  of  freedom  in  the  use  of 
the  Old  Testament,  and  imply  on  the  part  of  the  New  Testament  writers 
a  right  to  deal  freely,  a  right  drawn  from  the  same  authority  as  that 
which  gave  the  Word  at  the  first.  But  again,  lest  we  should  use  the 
Old  Testament  too  freely,  we  must  note  that  stress  is  laid  upon  the  very 
words  of  the  Old  Testament  (Matt.  xxii.  32 ;  Gal.  iii,  16). 

^  Mr.  Stopford  Brooke,  who  says  that  it  is  '  no  longer  in  his  power  to 
believe  in  the  miraculous  foundation  of  Christianity,'  and  that  he  has 
left  the  Church  of  England  '  not  to  be  less  but  to  be  more  of  a  Chris- 
tian,' proceeds  with  an  uneasy  audacity  that  is  in  many  ways  pathetic 
to  justify  his  step  by  diminishing  the  authority  of  the  New  Testament 
books.  He  will  tell  you  as  to  a  chapter  in  the  Apocalypse  where  the  seer 
was  '  writing  prosaically,'  with  '  nothing  but  the  old  Judaic  thought '  in 
what  he  says,  and  where  that  seer  began  to  write  by  inspiration.  And 
then,  lest  we  should  too  much  defer  to  John,  he  hastens  to  add  that 
'  inspiration  belongs  to  all  of  us,  .  .  .  is  the  right  and  privilege  of  every 
man  and  woman'  {Spirit  of  the  Christian  Life,  pp.  242-244). 


Lect.  II.]        NO  MIRACULOUS  PRESERVATION.  51 

would  not  contain  all  the  books  which  would  be 
written  were  the  record  of  Christ's  life  full.  No 
one  can  for  a  moment  suppose  that  the  Hebrew 
Canon  contains  all  the  inspired  words  of  the 
prophets  whom  Jehovah  sent  to  Israel,  '  rising 
up  early'  to  send  them.  Nor  of  Jesus  Himself, 
or  of  His  apostles,  are  the  spoken  words  recorded 
save  to  a  small  extent.  It  is  unwarrantable 
to  suppose  that  all  which  was  of  permanent 
application  remains,  while  that  which  has  perished 
was  only  for  the  time  and  place  of  speaking. 
There  is  absolutely  no  trace  of  authority  for  such 
a  statement. 

It  is  equally  unwarrantable  to  suppose,  a  priori, 
that  all  the  Christian  writings  of  permanent  value 
have  been  preserved.  Though  there  is  no  abso- 
lutely cogent  proof,  there  is  some  reason  to 
believe  that  one  of  Paul's  letters  to  the  Corin- 
thians is  lost. 

It  is  scarcely  possible  to  imagine  that  those 
two  short  letters  of  the  aged  John  are  all  that 
he  wrote  to  his  friends  when  he  alone  survived 
of  those  who  had  been  with  the  Lord  in  the  flesh. 

And  if  God  were  miraculously  to  preserve  a 
writing,  He  would  surely  miraculously  preserve 
each  part  of  it.  In  that  case,  there  would  be  no 
various  readings  in  the  sacred  books  which  sur- 
vive through  the  centuries.  There  must  be^  in  our 
own    time,  some   one   copy  of  the  text   to  which 


52  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  THE  BIBLE.        [Lect.  ii. 

we  can  always  refer  as  an  infallible  standard  by 
which  disputes  must  be  decided.  But  that  it  is 
not  so, — that  human  reason  and  loving  care  are 
well  employed  in  searching  which  of  many  forms 
is  likely  to  have  been  the  original  clothing  of 
some  divine  truth, — our  everyday  experience  amply 
proves. 

But  we  must  nevertheless  observe  the  wonder- 
fully designed  adaptation  of  circumstances  to  holy 
ends  in  the  whole  history  of  the  sacred  writings.  In 
the  case  of  the  Old  Testament,  continual  instruc- 
tion in  the  words  of  Scripture,  and  the  multipli- 
cation of  copies  that  such  instruction  might  be 
given  in  all  the  lands  of  the  Dispersion,  furnished 
a  safeguard  for  the  immutableness  of  the  record. 
The  extraordinary,  even  superstitious,  value 
attached  by  the  Jews  to  the  minutest  jot  and 
tittle  of  their  books  was  a  further  protection  to 
it.  And  accordingly,  when  we  find  that  the 
strange  people  retain  as  their  Bible  a  series  of 
prophecies,  which  they  are  at  their  wits'  end  to 
interpret  of  any  other  than  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  yet 
which  they  have  not  altered  or  abridged  through 
all  the  centuries,  we  see  the  providence  of  God, 
though  we  may  not  call  it  an  infallible  miracle.^ 

1  On  this  subject  Harnack  (see  Brieger's  Zeitschrift  for  1879,  pp. 
o.')8  fP.  and  596  £f.)  tries  to  draw  some  remarkable  conclusions  from 
the  innocent  phrases  of  the  Muratorian  Fragment.  He  thinks  that 
*  Paul's  Epistles  may  not  yet  have  been  read  in  many  congregations  in  the 
first  half  of  the  second  century,  though '  [he  naively  adds]  '  proofs  of  it 
are  wanting ' !     There  is  '  no  trace  of  hostility  to  Paul  on  the  part  of 


Lect.  II.]  NORTON'S  CALCULATIONS.  53 

The  same  is  true  of  the  New  Testament. 
Paul's  Epistles  were  read  in  the  various  churches 
of  Christendom  even  while  the  apostle  lived ; 
and  they  were  soon  known  to  all  the  scattered 
children  of  God,  so  that  their  hard  sayings  w^ere 
familiar  (2  Peter  iii.  16).  Thus  early,  therefore, 
the  reverence  of  Christians  throughout  the 
w^orld  for  the  writings  of  the  apostles  furnished 
a  guarantee  that  those  writings  would  be  pre- 
served without  essential  change  or  material  loss.^ 
Save  that  the  whole  dispensation  is  miraculous, 
and  that  the  Church  has  in  it  the  abiding  miracle 
of  the  presence  of  Christ  by  His  Spirit,  we 
cannot  call  this  special  providence  a  miracle.  But 
it  is  a  proof  of  the  '  singular  care  and  providence 
of  God.' 

I  may  here  use  the  calculation  and  illustration 
of  an  eminent  American  critic  (Professor  Norton). 
Gibbon  estimates  that  the  population  of  the 
Roman  Empire  in  the  time  of  the  Antonines 
was  about  120,000,000,  and  that  not  more  than 
one -twentieth  of  the  whole  were  Christian  before 
the    conversion    of    Constantino.       This    seems    an 

the  author  of  the  Fragment ; '  but  he  says,  '  I  can  only  account  for  the 
fact  by  the  supposition  that  the  public  reading  of  the  Pauline  letters 
in  the  congregations  never  ceased,  notwithstanding  the  ignoring  of  the 
actual  Paul,  and  was  established  in  far  the  majority  of  churches.'  It 
would  not  occur  to  any  one  but  an  ingenious  critic  as  possible  to  read 
the  letters  of  Paul  and  ignore  the  actual  Paul.  Yet  this  is  the  key- 
stone of  a  new  theory  which  is  intended  to  supplant  or  complement 
that  of  Baur, 

1  See  Newman's  Grammar  of  Assent  for  testimonies,  p.  468. 


54  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  THE  BIBLE.       [Lect.  ir. 

inadequate  estimate,  for  when  the  first  century 
closed  Pliny  found  that  'the  contagion  of  this 
superstition  had  made  its  way  not  in  cities  only, 
but  in  the  lesser  towns  also,  and  in  the  open 
country.'  A  hundred  years  later  (about  a.d.  200), 
Tertullian  said  :  '  We  are  but  of  yesterday,  and  w^e 
have  filled  everything  that  is  yours  :  cities,  islands, 
castles,  factories,  council  halls,  the  very  camps, 
all  classes  of  men,  the  palace,  the  city,  the  forum. 
We  have  left  you  nothing  but  your  temples.  We 
can  number  your  armies  ;  there  are  more  Chris- 
tians in  a  single  province.  ...  If  we,  such  a 
multitude  of  men,  had  broken  away  from  you, 
retiring  into  some  remote  corner  of  the  world, 
your  government  would  have  been  covered  wdth 
shame  at  the  loss  of  so  many  citizens,  wdioever 
they  might  be.  The  very  desertion  would  have 
punished  you.  Without  doubt  you  would  have 
been  terrified  at  your  solitude  ;  at  the  silence  and 
stupor  of  all  things,  as  if  the  world  were  dead. 
You  would  have  had  to  look  about  for  subjects.' 

But  let  us  grant  that  the  Christians  were  about 
one-twentieth  of  the  population  of  the  empire  at 
the  end  of  the  third  century.  Let  us  suppose 
that  they  were  one-fortieth  at  the  end  of  the 
second  century.  If  so,  we  have  at  that  date 
three  millions  of  Christians.  If  we  suppose  that 
there  w^as  one  copy  of  the  Gospels  for  every  fifty 
Christians, — a  number  as  great  as  was  likely  to  be 


Lect.  II.]      LITERATURE  UNDER  THE  EMPIRE.  55 

found   in    one    place   of  meeting, — we    have    sixty 
thousand  copies  in  all  in  the  year  a.d.  200.^ 

This  is  a  very  large  number,  but  it  can  seem 
incredible  and  improbable  to  none  save  those  who 
know  that  books  were  scarce  in  the  Middle  Ages, 
and  that  they  must  have  been  scarcer  in  the  days 
of  the  Antonines.  The  first  three  centuries  of 
Christianity  were  times  of  far  greater  and  more 
widely  diffused  intellectual  and  religious  activity 
than  those  which  followed.  Men  were  more  anxious 
in  those  early  days  to  know  the  Christian  records 
than  they  were  afterwards,  when  the  ecclesiastical 
and  monastic  systems  were  fully  established.  At 
that  later  time  Greek  was  almost  unknown  in  the 
Western  monasteries,  and  the  mass  of  men  was 
illiterate.  But  at  the  beginning  of  the  Christian 
era  writing  was  a  common  accomplishment ;  books 
— both  in  Greek  and  in  Latin — were  so  much  mul- 
tiplied by  shorthand  writers  and  copyists  as  to  be 
sold  cheap.  Bookselling  was  a  large  and  flourishing 
trade  in  Bome,  and  it  continued  for  long  to  increase 
in  favour  and  popularity.  If  an  ordinary  copy  of 
272  verses  of  Martial  could  be  had  for  a  halfpenny 
(leaving  a  profit  to  the  bookseller),  and  a  luxurious 
copy  of  his  Epigrams  for  fivepence,  it  is  clear  that 
literature  was  within  the  reach  of  most  men. 

The    Christian   community   from  the  very   first 
showed  that  it  shared  in  the  characteristics  of  a 

^  Norton,  Genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  vol.  ii.  p.  32  ff. 


56  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  THE  BIBLE.       [Lect.  it. 

literary  time.  AYe  have  frequent  references  to 
writing  in  the  New  Testament ;  both  heathens 
and  Christians  habitually  wrote.  All  Paul's 
friends  wrote  for  him,  and,  as  a  rule,  he  only 
added  a  few  salutations  with  his  own  hand  to 
what  his  friends  had  written  for  him.  Origen, 
the  great  scholar  of  the  third  century,  had  seven 
shorthand  writers  in  his  own  employment,  and 
many  girls  who  wrote  out  fair  copies.  He  says 
books  were  not  confined  to  students,  but  were  in 
most  common  use.  It  is  in  the  multiplication  of 
copies  of  the  New  Testament  that  we  find  the 
reason  of  so  many  various  readings  in  small  points, 
and  also  the  complete  security  for  no  important 
error  being  allowed  to  exist.  It  is  in  this  way 
also  that  we  account  for  the  loss  of  the  originals 
of  the  New  Testament  writings,  though  they  were 
preserved  for  a  considerable  time  in  the  places  to 
which  they  were  first  sent.  The  copies  were  so 
many,  so  good,  and  so  universally  circulated,  that 
men  ceased  to  refer  to  the  originals  as  anything 
special,  and  the  originals  were  used  like  the  others 
and  worn  out.  Thus  we  have  no  difficulty  in 
behoving  that  there  were  sixty  thousand  copies 
of  the  Gospels  for  the  three  millions  of  Christians. 

6.  Assuming  that  the  record  of  revelation  in  the 
Bible  is  preserved  ivith  substantial  accuracij,  we 
find  in  it  the  record  of  a  progressive  revelation. 
We   make   no    attempt    to   go  beyond   the   limits 


Lect.  II  ]  REVELATION  PROGRESSIVE.  57 

of  the  Bible  narratives  when  we  try  to  speak  of 
progress  in  religious  knowledge.  There  is  not 
much  to  tempt  us  to  go  beyond  them  if  we  would 
deal  Avith  ascertained  results.  Those  who  seek 
to  trace  the  steps  of  man's  progress  in  religion 
without  revelation  are  not  agreed  either  as  to  the 
point  at  which  it  began,  or  as  to  the  stages  by 
w^hich  it  advanced.  Some— following  (or  accom- 
modating) the  great  high  priest  of  Positivism — 
would  have  us  believe  that  all  religion  began 
with  fetich -worship,  i.e,  the  worship  of  natural 
objects  or  their  emblems  ;  others  would  have  it 
that  the  first  step  was  the  worship  of  the  sky  ; 
others  find  it  in  the  worship  of  the  spirits  of 
deceased  ancestors ;  but  there  is  no  agreement 
as  to  the  initial  point,  nor  as  to  what  succeeded. 
The  sun  shines  at  the  present  day  on  tribes  and 
nations  of  men  practising  all  those  forms  of 
idolatry,  but  the  study  of  human  nature  and  of 
human  speech  cannot  decide  whether  the  lowest 
form  is  a  beginning  of  upward  progress,  or  is  only 
the  latest  result  of  a  long  process  of  degradation. 
Men  of  science  must  give  up  the  attempt  to 
account,  on  material  or  rationalistic  grounds,  for 
that  sense  of  the  supernatural  which  dominates 
man ;  no  number  of  supposed  stages  can  make  it 
easy  to  understand  when  or  how  man  began  the 
process  in  course  of  which  he  has  come  to  worship 
One  God,  the  Spirit.     They  will  have  at  last  to 


58  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  THE  BIBLE.       [Lect.  ir. 

seek  shelter  in  an  older  and  simpler  creed  than 
any  of  those  compromises  with  ^Positivism'  which 
are  so  current.  *  There  is  a  spirit  in  man,  and 
the  inspiration  of  the  Almighty  giveth  him 
understanding ; '  and  that  spirit  witnesses  to  the 
being  and  power  of  the  Spiritual  God.  Religion 
is  not  man-made,  though  it  has  been  perverted 
and  degraded  by  man.  It  is  not  so  philosophical 
to  hold  w^hat  Max  Miiller  seems  to  hold, — that 
Monotheism  is  a  refinement  upon  Polytheism, 
that  the  idea  of  deity  grew  out  of  the  previous 
ideas  of  many  supernatural  powers,  so  'that  the 
predicate  ''God,"  which  is  looked  for  and  slowly 
conquered,  that  the  intuition  of  the  divine,  is  by 
its  very  nature  one,'^ — as  to  hold  with  Lessing  that 
idolatry  was  the  degradation  of  primitive  Mono- 
theism, a  degradation  which  came  because  '  the 
human  reason  left  to  itself  broke  up  the  Immeasur- 
able into  many  measurables,  and  gave  a  note  or 
sign  of  mark  to  every  one  of  these  parts.'  ^ 

Nor  on  grounds  of  abstract  philosophy  alone  is 
this  true.  Pecent  evidence  goes  to  discredit  Comte's 
idea  that  fetichism  is  the  beofinnin^r  of  relisfion,^  and 

^  Hubert  Lectures,  p.  273. 

2  Education  of  the  Human  Race,  §  6. 

^  Fetichism  is  a  term  due  to  De  Brosses  in  his  book  Les  Dieux 
FeticJies  (1760).  He  also  invented  the  words  'Australia'  and  'Poly- 
nesia.' Feitigos  =  factitious  (something  made),  was  the  word  by 
which  Portuguese  sailors  designated  the  charms  or  amulets  which  they 
wore.  Africans  used  also  charms  (grl-gris),  and  ascribed  to  them 
magical  virtues,  and  the  sailors  called  them  also  fetiches.  But  the 
savage  invests  his  fetich,  just  as  the  Roman  Catholic  does,  with  powers 


Lect.  II.]  IDEA  OF  THE  SUPERNATURAL.  50 

to  exhibit  fetichism  as  a  corruption  of  something 
better.  This  is  true  of  Polytheism  also.  The  great 
trouble  in  the  way  of  those  who  regard  religion  as 
man-made  is  the  necessity  of  accounting  for  its 
existence.  Whence  came  the  sense  of  the  super- 
natural ?  Why  did  man  feel  after  God  if  haply  he 
might  find  Him?  It  might  be  that  in  this  endea- 
vour of  feeling,  man  advanced  from  the  belief  of 
many  gods  to  the  sublime  worship  of  One  ;  but 
how  did  man  come  to  believe  in  many  gods  ?  That 
all  the  universe  around  him  is  pervaded  by  the 
spiritual  and  supernatural  presence  of  Deity  is 
the  truth  at  the  basis  of  even  Polytheism  ;  and 
how  did  man  attain  to  the  conviction  of  that 
truth  ?  Before  man  could  spread  out  an  acknow- 
ledgment of  Deity  till  it  covered  a  whole  Pan- 
theon, he  must  have  been  possessed  of  the  faith, 
which  dictates  that  acknowledgment ;  and  whence 
did  it  come  ?     How  did  it  begin  ? 

It  does  not  seem  as  though,  students  of  com- 
parative religion  always  duly  estimate  this  diffi- 
culty. Nor  does  it  seem  clear  that  they  have 
settled  with  themselves  whether  God  is  an  inven- 
tion or  a  discovery  ;  whether  He  exists  or  no.^ 
Some  say  that  religion  is  man-made ;  but  do  they 

of  a  supernatural  kind— makes  it  a  symbol,  in  short.  But  a  symbol  of 
what  ?  Of  something  supernatural ;  the  idea  of  which  precedes  the  use 
of  the  symbol,  and  cannot  be  derived  from  it. 

1  See  this  powerfully  brought  out  by  the  Duke  of  Argyll,  Contcmp. 
Review,  vol.  xxxix.,  especially  p.  GG5  ff. 


60  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  THE  BIBLE.       [Lect.  ii. 

mean  that  God  is  man-made  ?  It  does  not  lie 
within  our  subject  to  dwell  upon  what  is  called 
comparative  religion  ;  but  it  was  needful  to  say 
thus  much  in  explanation  of  our  confining  our- 
selves to  the  record  given  in  the  Bible.^  In  the 
present  unsettled  condition  of  the  whole  study  no 
other  course  is  possible.  This,  too,  we  may  say, 
that  the  most  recent  inquiries  and  comparisons, 
by  bringing  out  the  fact  of  'progress'  in  religion 
being  so  often  downward,  are  going  far  to  establish 
on  scientific  grounds  the  belief  to  which  so  many 
have  clung,  because  they  believe  in  the  teaching 
of  the   Bible,  that   there  was  a  primeval  revela- 

^  Though  Comte's  notion  of  all  religion  beginning  in  fetichism — a 
natural  basis  for  such  a  structure  as  his — is  apparently  discarded  by 
most  students,  or  held  with  modifications,  there  is  still  great  unwilling- 
ness to  exempt  religion  from  the  idea  of  progress  upw^ards  by  evolution. 
Some  suppose  that  they  have  found  the  key  to  the  difficulty  when  they 
exalt  Henotheism — whether  the  local  supremacy  of  one  god  at  each 
centre  of  population  (as  in  Egypt),  or  the  '  successive  belief  in  single 
supreme  gods '  (as  in  the  Vedas),  be  meant  by  the  term.  But,  granting 
that  Henotheism  stands  midway  between  Monotheism  and  Polytheism, 
there  remains  the  old  question  as  to  the  direction  in  which  man's  face 
was  turned  when  his  foot  stood  on  this  stepping-stone.  Was  he 
going  up  or  down?  If  up — towards  Monotheism — then  (1)  how  did 
his  ideas  of  the  supernatural  begin?  and  (2)  how  did  they  come 
to  tend  in  this  direction?  Those  questions  are  not  answered.  If  a 
merely  human  view  of  religion — a  view  that  it  is  man-made — be  sought 
for,  surely  the  best  is  that  of  those  who  hold  that  early  heathen  religions 
began  in  the  worship  of  the  sky,  and  that  Polytheism  was  the  next  stage 
in  what  was  originally  a  vague  reverence  for  the  power  dw^elling  in  the 
firmament.  This  is  obviously  a  progress  downward ;  and  there  is  good 
reason  for  believing  that  this  was  the  case.  The  idea  of  a  great  supreme 
god  first ;  then  the  worship  of  the  sky,  and  so  on.  Thus  the  doctrine  of 
revelation  is  consistent  with  scientific  study  of  the  facts.  See  Poole's 
Essays  in  Contemp.  Review,  vol.  xxxix.,  for  many  interesting  facts.  See 
Keary's  Outlines  of  Primitive  Belief  ior  a  modification  of  Comtism  :  Man 
worshipped  the  trees  at  his  feet,  and  then  rose  to  the  sky  and  the  Deity  ! 


Lect.  II.]  PROGRESS  IN  MAN'S  UNDERSTANDING.  61 

tion,  of  which  all  heathenism  is  a  corruption ;  that 
^  God  made  man  uj)right,  but  that  he  has  sought 
out  many  inventions.' 

But  let  us  turn  to  the  Bible  itself.  "We  do 
not  find  a  progress  in  unbroken  order  as  regards 
some  aspects  of  truth.  It  is  of  the  earliest  age 
of  man  we  are  told  that  Enoch  walked  with  God, 
and  that  Abraham  was  the  friend  of  God.  The 
personal  presence  of  God  could  not  be  more  dis- 
tinctly felt  by  any  of  their  posterity.  As  regards 
an  individual's  own  sanctified  life,  I  do  not  see 
any  proof  that  an  Israelite  was  more  advanced 
than  an  antediluvian  may  have  been,  or  than 
Abraham  was.  There  seems  to  have  been  no 
greater  faith  at  any  subsequent  period  than  that 
which  was  ^  reckoned  for  righteousness '  to  the 
father  of  the  faithful.  The  Mosaic  polity  was  in- 
dispensable for  the  formation  of  a  nation,  and  there- 
fore it  was  given,  but  I  do  not  know  any  respect 
in  which  it  was  better  for  individuals.  But 
there  is  an  indubitable  progress  in  man's  under- 
standing of  the  purposes  of  God  in  Christ 
between  the  first  dim  expectation  of  the  banished 
pair,  to  which  Eve  bore  pathetic  witness  when  she 
hailed  her  first-born,  saying  :  ^  I  have  gotten  the 
man  from  the  Lord,'  and  that  which  David  had 
when  he  wrote  the  110th  Psalm  : 

'  The  Lord  said  unto  mj  Lord, 
Sit  Thou  at  my  right  hand  ; ' 


62  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  THE  BIBLE.        [Lect.  ii. 

or  that  which  Isaiah  had  when  he  said  of  the 
Messiah  :  '  He  bare  the  sin  of  many,  and  made 
intercession  for  the  transgressors.'  So,  too,  we  see 
progress  in  regard  to  the  prophetic  aspects  of 
Christ's  work  between  Moses'  prediction  of  a 
prophet  like  unto  him  and  Malachi's  announce- 
ment of  the  day  of  the  Lord,  for  which  one  in  the 
spirit  and  power  of  Ehas  would  prepare. 

In  the  New  Testament,  also,  we  see  a  progress 
in  men's  views  not  only  during  Christ's  life,  but 
also  after  his  death.  Pentecost  itself  did  not 
complete  the  preparation  of  the  mind  of  the 
disciples  for  the  full  width  of  Christian  freedom  ; 
and  we  see,  for  example,  both  a  widening  and  a 
deepening  in  Peter's  experience  at  Joppa,  and  at 
the  Council  of  Jerusalem  (Acts  xv.).  Paul  him- 
self was  unwillingly  turned  by  his  experience  of 
facts,  under  divine  guidance,  from  his  chosen  field 
of  Israel  to  become  the  apostle  of  the  Gentiles. 

In  estimating  the  progress  of  this  understanding, 
it  has  always  to  be  noted  that  each  stage  of  pro- 
gress was  the  result  of  a  new  revelation  of  which 
men  were  conscious.  God,  who  had  spoken  to 
the  fathers,  spoke  again  to  them.  Daniel  was 
doubtless  not  the  only  one  in  the  studious  circles 
of  Israel,  or  of  the  exile,  who  *  understood  by 
the  books '  some  of  the  things  which  had  been 
spoken  before  ;  but  it  was  not  by  his  study,  but 
by  the   revelation   he   was   privileged   to   receive, 


Lect.  ii]        progress  DUE  TO  REVELATION.  63 

that  Daniel  added  to  the  sacred  roll  of  prophecy. 
Each  step — Sinai,  the  Temple,  the  Prophecies,  the 
Gospels,  the  Epistles — claims  to  be  founded  on  a 
special   revelation.       The   progress   of   which   the 
Bible   speaks  is  not  such  as  we   might  make,  or 
such  as  thoughtful  and  spiritual  men  might  have 
made  at  any  time  by  dint  of  using  the  revelation 
already  in  their  hands.     It  was  not  '  a  predicate 
looked    for    and    slowly   conquered '   by   inquiring 
and  resolute  men.     In  short,  it  is  not  progress  in 
interpretation    but   progress   in    revelation.      It   is 
true  that  greater  progress  in  spiritual  life  and  in 
intelligent   service  might  have  been  made  if  the 
children   of    Israel    had    made    the    most   of    the 
privileges     they     enjoyed.       The     disciples    were 
charged   by  Jesus  Himself  with  being   fools  and 
slow  of  heart  to  believe  all  that  the  prophets  had 
written   (Luke  xxiv.   25,   44)  ;    and  Paul,   in   like 
manner,  tells  of  the  vail  upon  the  hearts  of  Israel 
when  Moses  is  read  (2   Cor.  iii.    1 5) ;    but  still  it 
was    not    merely   a   right    use    of   the    old   which 
brought  the  new ;   it  was  the  special  interposition 
of  God,  and  the  new  revelation  contained  in  His 
incarnate  life,  that  added  to  the  ancient  j)rophetic 
Word,  and  took  away  the  vail  between  Moses  and 
the   Hebrew  heart.      The  unity   of   Scripture  lies 
not  only  in  the  progress  being  always  in  the  same 
direct  line,  but   in    each    stage    of   it    taking    up 
the  unfinished   work  and  the   unsatisfied   longings 


64  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  THE  BIBLE.        [Lect.  ii. 

of  the  stage  which  preceded  (2  Peter  i.  10,  11). 
Abraham's  family  expected  to  be  a  nation,  and 
the  nation  was  formed  by  Moses ;  the  people  of 
Israel  expected  in  the  time  of  Moses  to  have 
united  worship,  a  priesthood,  and  a  line  of 
prophets,  and  these  all  came  about  as  the  scroll 
of  history  was  unrolled ;  ritual;  law,  and  prophecy 
prefigured  the  Messiah,  and  with  the  fulness  of 
the  times  He  came.  There  is  not  in  the  New 
Testament  any  ground  to  expect  a  similar  further 
development  of  the  revelation  ;  the  work  of  the 
Spirit  of  Christ  has  still  infinite  progress  to  effect 
that  all  nations  may  be  made  disciples,  but  we 
are  not  led  to  expect  a  further  addition  to  the 
written  Word.  God  hath  spoken  to  us  by  His 
Son  ;  what  need  have  we  of  further  witness  ? 

In  this  arises  one  of  the  most  difficult  questions 
in  our  Christian  ethics  :  How  far  are  the  earlier 
revelations  a  binding  rule  for  those  who  live 
under  the  later  ?  But  it  seems  as  though  the 
difficulty  were  solved  when  we  remember  that 
the  dispensation  under  which  we  live  is  our  only 
rule.  The  Old  Testament  is  unto  us  a  divine 
book ;  but  we  live  under  the  gospel  of  Jesus 
Christ;  and  only  in  so  far  as  the  earlier  revela- 
tion is  adopted  and  confirmed  by  the  gospel  is  it 
in  any  degree  binding  upon  us.  I  know  no  doc- 
trine of  our  faith  which  we  are  left  to  prove 
from    the    Old    Testament ;    though    the    things 


l.ECT.  II.]      EARLIER  AND  LATER  SCRIPTURES.  65 

written  aforetime  were  written  for  our  learnino* 
that  we  might  better  understand  the  ways  of 
God  in  the  reveahnsf  and  redeemino:  hfe  of  His 
Son.  But  when  of  all  that  work  He  could  say 
'  It  is  finished,'  that  which  is  imperfect  was  done 
away  as  a  rule  or  standard.  We  are  to  explain 
the  Old  Testament  by  the  New,  not  the  New  by 
the  Old. 

But  this  does  not  warrant  any  one  to  put  aside 
the  early  records  as  though  they  were  untrue  to 
fact.  No  more  are  they  falsified  by  being  super- 
seded than  John  the  Baptist  was.  John  must 
decrease,  the  Christ  must  increase,  because  it  is 
He  that  should  come.  But  that  proves  the  truth 
of  John's  witnessing.  Even  so  the  earlier  Scrip- 
tures are  superseded  because  they  fulfilled  their 
purpose,  not  because  they  failed. 

Some  speak  as  though  the  progress  of  sacred  nar- 
rative were  like  that  of  classic  story — legend  gently 
shading  into  sober  history.  But  this  is  false.  The 
miracles  of  Scripture  are  not  found  in  the  earlier 
as  distinct  from  the  later  books.  They  are  found 
at  all  the  critical  periods  of  the  history,  as  when  a 
new  dispensation  is  founded,  or  when  the  fate  of 
the  covenant  people  is  trembling  in  the  balance. 
The  greatest  is  the  last.  All  miracles,  all  pro- 
phecies, culminate  in  the  life  and  work  of  Jesus 
Christ.      Not   among  the   world's   grey  fathers, — 

simple  men  no  doubt, — but  in  a  time  of  culture  and 

E 


66  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  THE  BIBLE.        [Lect.  ir. 

worn-out  belief,  was  the  God  Incarnate  seen,  His 
life  standing  out  as  the  most  stupendous  of  miracles 
— a  miracle  even  on  the  page  of  history.  There  is 
a  progress  from  legend  to  history  between  Hercules 
and  Alexander  of  Macedon,  between  Numa  Pom- 
pilius  and  Augustus  Csesar ;  but  it  is  not  so  between 
Abraham,  God's  friend,  and  Jesus  Christ,  God's 
own  Son. 


LECTUEE  III. 

FORMATION  OF  A  CANON  I    THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  AND  THE 
NEW  AT  THE  BEGINNING  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  ERiV. 

Although  we  have  seen  good  reason  to  ascribe 
to  our  Bible  as  a  whole  a  claim  to  truth,  unity, 
and  authority,  a  claim  to  be  the  Word  of  God, 
we  have  not  attempted  to  show  how  those  books 
w^ere  collected  into  one  and  regarded  as  one.  To 
begin  this  inquiry  is  the  object  of  the  present 
lecture.  We  have  to  dwell  for  some  time  on  points 
of  contact  between  the  Old  Testament  and  the 
New,  in  order  to  bring  out  the  position  of  the 
New  Testament. 

At  the  very  outset  we  are  struck  with  the 
remarkable  phenomenon  that  we  have  before  us. 
This  is  not  a  book  in  any  ordinary  sense.  The  Old 
Testament  is  a  national  literature.  It  was  beinof 
composed  during  1500  years,  and  in  very  varied 
circumstances.  In  the  desert  and  in  the  city,  in 
anarchy  and  in  tranquillity,  the  men  of  God  wrote 
by  the  Holy  Ghost.  Some  parts  of  it  are  books 
to  be  read,  and  some  are  to  be  sunof  ;  some  are 
clearly  didactic,  others  exuberantly  poetical,  touch- 


68  FORMATION  OF  A  CANON.  [Lect.  hi. 

ing  every  issue  as  well  as  every  spring  of  national 
and  personal  life.  But  nevertheless,  when  it  is 
gathered  into  one  volume,  its  unity,  as  we  have 
seen,  is  as  striking  as  its  variety. 

So,  too,  is  it  with  the  New  Testament  to  a  great 
extent.  Not  as  regards  time.  The  New  Testa- 
ment claims  to  be  written  by  the  men  of  the 
generation  that  saw  Jesus  Christ  in  the  flesh.  In 
many  other  respects,  however,  it  is  as  varied  as  the 
older  volume  by  the  side  of  w^iich  it  has  been  set. 
Eight  men — perhaps  nine  men — wrote  it.  Some 
parts  of  it  were  written  in  Europe,  some  in  Asia, 
some  in  the  wilds  of  Patmos.  One  book  seems  to 
have  been  written  in  congenial  loneliness ;  several 
were  dictated  while  the  author's  hand  was  chained 
to  that  of  a  Eoman  soldier.  History,  prophecy, 
and  law  are  here  as  in  the  Hebrew  Scripture ; 
something  corresponding  to  the  Psalms  is  wanting 
to  make  the  parallel  complete.  A  change  of  form, 
too,  to  this  extent,  that  while  Old  Testament  pro- 
phets usually  spoke  before  they  wrote  the  revealing 
Avord,  and  then  wrote  what  they  had  spoken,  the 
New  Testament  prophets,  even  when  they  WTote 
to  those  whom  they  had  taught  by  word  of  mouth, 
made  their  compositions  take  the  form  of  letters, 
not  of  '  burdens  '  or  addresses.  Still  the  variety  is 
wonderful,  and  the  unity  of  the  whole  is  amazing. 
That  a  pointed  narrative  like  St.  Mark's  Gospel, 
and  a  meditative  treatise  like  St.  John's,  written 


l.ECT.  III.]  SCRrPTURE  PUBLICLY  READ.  69 

with  a  different  purpose,  with  nearly  half  a  century 
between  them,  and  in  different  continents,  should 
tell  of  the  same  Divine  Man  ;  and  that  the  person- 
ality of  this  God-Man  delineated  by  all  the  four 
Gospels  should  be — unchanged  yet  glorified — the 
centre  of  the  Epistles  of  Paul  and  James  and  Jude 
and  Peter  and  John,  is  in  itself  supernatural.  The 
books  which  make  up  the  New  Testament  are  so 
varied  that  to  the  mind  of  man  there  is  perplexity 
in  the  attempt  to  understand  how  they  came  to  be 
one,  and  to  be  recognised  as  one  by  the  mass  of  the 
people.  How  came  it  about  that  Christians  be- 
thought themselves  of  the  possibility  of  so  blending 
instruction  with  worship,  that  in  their  daily  meet- 
inofs  the  readinof  of  the  sacred  books  should  form 
a  part  of  their  service  of  God  ?  It  does  not  appear 
that  in  any  previous  religion  men  had  attained 
to  the  knowledge  that  not  sacrifice  but  spiritual 
service  of  God  was  the  highest  worship.  Christians 
realized  this,  and  also  that  the  core  of  each  service 
lay  in  hearkening  to  the  voice  of  the  living  God,  at 
first  speaking  through  His  divinely-commissioned 
disciples,  but  soon — in  their  absence — through  the 
reading  of  the  words  which  they  had  written.  We 
search  in  vain  for  a  parallel  to  this.  Though 
hymns  were  used  in  the  great  services  and  in  the 
private  devotions  of  the  followers  of  many  religions, 
we  do  not  find  in  the  shrines  of  Egypt  or  Assyria, 
any  more  than  in  those  of  India  or  China  or  Peru, 


70  FORMATION  OF  A  CANON.  [Lect.  hi 

that  the  sacred  books  were  regarded  as  the  centre 
of  the  religion  and  of  the  Avorship.^ 

Not  at  any  time  before  the  Christian  era  was 
there  a  parallel  to  this  even  in  Jerusalem.  During 
the  glory  of  the  first  temple  the  tables  of  the  cove- 
nant were  indeed  by  the  side  of  the  ark;  yet  it 
was  not  to  those  ancient  writings,  but  to  the  pre- 
sence of  God  on  the  mercy-seat,  the  covering  of 
the  ark,  that  men's  hearts  turned  when  they 
thought  of  the  most  solemn  rites  of  their  faith. 
While  the  second  temple  stood,  and  even  when 
Herod's  gorgeous  pile  crowned  the  height  of 
Moriah,  it  was  under  the  influence  of  a  pathetic 
reminiscence  of  the  departed  glory  that  men  still 
regarded  the  sacrificial  ritual  in  that  great  house 
as  the  most  acceptable  worship  of  the  God  of 
their  fathers.  When  Josephus  speaks  of  his  coun- 
trymen as  ready  to  die  for  the  books  they  so  dearly 
loved,  we  have  a  testimony  from  about  the  time 
when  the  last  survivor  of  the  disciples  was  writing 
his  Gospel,  a  century  after  Christ  was  born.  So 
long  as  the  temple  stood,  the  most  sacred  services 
of  religion  were  identified  with  its  public  sacrifices, 
and  not  with  reading  and  prayer. 

^  There  is  little  information  as  yet  available  on  the  important  subject 
of  the  relation  of  the  standard  or  authoritative  books  (if  there  were  any) 
to  the  popular  faith  and  ordinary  ritual.  The  case  of  Egypt  is  an  illustra- 
tion of  our  ignorance.  Again,  we  know  very  little  of  the  means  whereby 
(books  not  existing)  the  people  of  Greece  or  Rome  were  taught  the 
theology  of  their  religious  services.  The  students  of  comparative 
religion  have  a  large  field  in  this  department  uncultivated.  We  know 
about  the  Brahmanical  use  of  standard  books,  and  that  is  almost  all. 


Lect.  III.]  READING  IN  SYNAGOGUE.  Vl 

It  was  out  of  the  synagogue  that  habitual 
reading,  like  so  much  else  of  the  early  Christian 
worship,  grew.  Perliaps  we  should  add  that  the 
sacred  supremacy  of  the  word  thus  read  was  not 
fully  realized  in  the  synagogue  until  after  Chris- 
tianity had  influenced  it.  In  the  synagogue  before 
the  time  of  Christ  the  traditions  of  the  elders  out- 
weiofhed  the  voice  of  God  in  the  written  word. 
But  still  it  was  in  the  synagogue  that  the  practice 
of  reverently  reading  the  Scripture  as  an  integral 
part  of  divine  worship  took  its  rise.  A  more 
powerful  source  of  influence  and  custom  there 
could  not  be.  Let  us  see  how  the  synagogue  led 
the  Jews  to  be  so  much  devoted  to  the  written 
word.  At  the  time  of  our  Lord  there  were  syna- 
gogues in  every  village, — about  five  hundred  of 
them  in  Jerusalem  alone, — and  in  them  all  there 
was  the  sacred  roll  of  Scripture,  which  was  habitu- 
ally read  when  the  congregation  assembled.  It 
mio:ht  be  read  in  the  orimnal  Hebrew  or  in  the 
Greek  version  (certainly  the  latter  in  Egypt),  but 
it  was  expounded  in  the  local  vernacular.  The  three 
divisions  of  the  Jewish  Bible  were  not  on  the  same 
level  as  regards  this  public  reading.  The  Jirst 
division  —  '  the  law,'  or,  as  we  should  say,  the 
Pentateuch  —  had  been  from  an  early  date  read 
every  Sabbath,  being  so  subdivided  into  153 
portions  that  the  whole  of  it  was  read  through 
every   three   years  :  *  Moses    of  old  time   hath   in 


72  FORMATION  OF  A  CANON.  [Lect.  iir. 

every  city  them  that  preach  liim,  being  read  in  the 
synagogue  every  Sabbath-day'  (Acts  xv.  21).  The 
second  division — '  the  prophets/  including  not  only 
what  we  call  the  proj)hets  (Daniel  excepted),  but 
also  the  historical  books  from  Joshua  to  Kinofs — 
was  also  regularly  read.  This  was  not  so  old  a 
custom  as  that  of  reading  the  law.  It  was  said  to 
have  begun  when  Antiochus  Epiphanes  (b.c.  168) 
made  it  a  capital  crime  for  any  one  to  have  in  his 
possession  the  book  of  the  covenant.  So  eager  Avere 
the  Jews  to  hear  the  sacred  word  that,  when  they 
were  forbidden  to  read  the  books  of  Moses,  they 
began  the  public  reading  of  the  prophets.^  In  the 
more  peaceful  times  of  which  our  New  Testament 
tells,  both  the  law  and  the  prophets  were  regularly 
read:  ^After  the  reading  of  the  law  and  the  prophets' 
(Acts  xiii.  15,  see  Acts  xv.  21,  2  Cor.  iii.  14),  and  the 
phrase  '  the  law  and  the  prophets  '  meant  the  well- 
known  Bible  (Matt.  xi.  13,  xxii.  40).  The  prophetical 
books  seem  to  have  been  read  at  the  close  of  the 
service,  the  name  of  the  sections  into  w^hich  they 
were  subdivided — Haphtaroth  ("•£??,  to  cleave,  to  let 
go) — meaning  dismissal.^  Thus  it  was  that  in  the 
synagogue  of  Nazareth  the  service  was  at  an  end 
with  the  reading  from  Isaiah  (probably  the  section 

^  See  Wetstein  on  St.  Luke  iv.  17.  It  is  said  that  the  reader  must  not 
read  less  than  twenty- one  verses  from  the  prophets,  unless  there  were 
a  sermon,  in  which  case  about  a  third  sufficed  for  reading. 

2  This  suggests  the  similar  phrase,  '  missa  est ' — it  is  done — for  the 
close  of  the  Christian  worship,  whence  most  probably  the  word  '  mass,' 
Others  derive  '  mass '  from  mensa. 


Lect.  III.]      SUBDIVISION  OF  OLD  TESTAMENT.  73 

for  tlie  day,  as  in  Acts  viii.  32),  Avlien  the  towns- 
men of  Jesus  rose  in  wrath  to  cast  Him  out  of  the 
city  and  over  the  rocks  (Luke  iv.  17,  30).  The 
third  division — the  ^  Kethubim/  or  waitings — was 
not,  as  a  whole,  regularly  read  through,  though 
portions  ^  were  fixed  for  prescribed  feast  days.  The 
Psalms,  the  first  book  in  this  division,^  were  regu- 
larly used  liturgically  in  the  synagogue  as  they 
had  been  used  in  the  temple.  They  w^ere  divided 
into  five  books,  to  make  them  correspond  with  the 
five  books  of  Moses.  Thus,  though  the  other  books 
were  occasionally  read,  the  books  in  fixed  and  con- 
stant use  were  '  the  law,  and  the  prophets,  and  the 
Psalms,'  and  to  them  Jesus  appealed  for  their  testi- 
mony concerning  Himself  (Luke  xxiv.  44).^ 

In  this  way  every  Jew  was  accustomed  to  the 
idea  of  sacred  books  being  used  in  worship,  and  was 
in  the  habit  of  appealing  to  them,  and  talking  and 
thinking  of  them  as  the  rule  of  life  and  the  standard 
of  doctrine.  The  passages  or  portions  had  their 
descriptive  names^  w^hich  w^ere  as  familiar  to  the 
Jewish  ear  as  favourite  portions  like  the  23d  Psalm 
and  the  14th  of  John  are  to  Christian  people.    'Have 

^  These  portions  were  of  the  Megilloth,  i.e.  Song  of  Solomon,  Euth, 
Lamentations,  Ecclesiastes,  Esther. « 

2  In  the  oldest  Talmudic  tradition  Ruth  came  first,  then  Psahns. 

3  The  present  arrangement  for  the  synagogue  is  Psalms,  Proverbs, 
Job  =  Kethubim  Rischonim  (first  or  early  Kethubim);  Canticles,  Ruth, 
Lamentations,  Ecclesiastes,  Esther  =  Kethubim  Ketanim  (or  little 
Kethubim) ;  Daniel,  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  Chronicles  =  Kethubim  Acheronim 
(or  late  Kethubim).     The  date  of  the  arrangement  is  uncertain. 


'^■i  FOKMATION  OF  A  CAXOX.  [Lect.  hi. 

ye  not  read  in  the  book  of  Moses,  in  the  section  called 
The  Bush? '  (Mark  xii.  26) ;  'Wot  ye  not  what  the 
Scripture  saith  in  the  section  about  Elijah?'  (Rom. 
xi.  2).  This  custom  of  naming  the  sections  after 
their  principal  subject  re-appears  in  the  manuscripts 
of  the  New  Testament,  and  lists  of  them  were  often 
given  at  the  beginning  of  a  ms.  Thus,  'About 
the  magi,'  'About  the  children  that  were  killed,' 
begin  the  list  of  subjects  in  mss.  of  St.  Matthew. 
AVhatever  may  have  been  the  case  at  an  earlier 
period,  it  was  to  the  written  word,  and  not  to  the 
living  voice  of  any  one  inspired  of  God  to  be  a 
preacher,  that,  w^hen  our  Lord  appeared,  the  Jew 
had  recourse  in  his  deepest  moods  of  earnestness : 
'  Ye  search  the  Scriptures,  because  ye  think  that  in 
them  ye  have  eternal  life  '  (John  v.  39).  The  men  in 
the  synagogue  of  Berea  '  examined  the  Scriptures 
daily  whether  these  things  were  so'  (Acts  xvii.  Tl). 
And  when  the  first  Christian  teachers  proclaimed 
the  gospel,  they  constantly  repeated  their  Master's 
first  sermon  by  quoting  the  Old  Testament,"  and 
proving  that  the  Scripture  had  been  fulfilled  in  their 
ears  (Luke  iv.  21).  The  deference  of  all  men  to  the 
written  word  had  been  carried  so  far  that  men  were 
slaves  of  the  mere  letter,  so  that  absurdly  minute 
subjects  of  controversy  were  discussed,  the  number 
of  letters  in  the  Bible  was  counted,  the  command- 
ments were  apportioned  as  greater  and  less,  and  so 
on,  until  the  very  masters  of  Israel  had  no  concep- 


Lect.  iil]         CAXON  regarded  AS  CLOSED.  75 

tion  of  the  Spirit  ^vliich  truly  filled  the  Avorcl.  Xo 
man  was  '  speaking  with  authority,'  because  men  had 
lost  their  practical  faith  in  the  living  God  who 
spoke  in  time  past  to  the  fathers. 

But  still  this  fact  meets  us,  that  the  mind  of  the 
Jew  was  familiar  with  the  idea  of  Holy  Scripture. 
Nor  only  this,  but  with  the  idea  of  a  Canon  that 
was  closed.  The  word  ^  canon  '  was  not  known  for 
400  years  in  this  distinct  sense  of  a  standard  col- 
lection of  books,  but  all  that  we  mean  by  it  was 
familiar.  It  had  not  entered  into  the  mind  of  a 
Jew  for  ages  that  some  new  book  might  perhaps 
be  made  and  added  to  the  Canon  of  his  Divine 
Scripture.  The  book  had  been  sealed  for  genera- 
tions, and  no  hope  had  for  long  entered  the  pious 
mind  that  the  dumb  oracles  of  God  would  speak 
again  until  Messiah  came.  Judas  Maccabeus  pulled 
down  the  altar  of  burnt-offerings  which  was  pro- 
faned, and  laid  up  the  stones  in  a  convenient  place 
until  there  should  come  a  prophet  to  show  what 
should  be  done  with  them  (1  Mace.  iv.  46  ;  see  also 
ix.  27,  xiv.  41).  'I  know  that  Messias  cometh, 
which  is  called  Christ :  when  He  is  come,  He  will 
declare  unto  us  all  things,'  said  the  woman  of 
Samaria  (John  iv.  25). 

This  conclusion  seems  to  rest  on  ascertained 
facts.  There  is  nothing  in  the  threefold  division 
or  in  the  nature  and  amount  of  acceptance  of  the 
Hebrew  Canon  to  make  it  doubtful.       There  has 


'J' 6  FORMATION  OF  A  CANON.  [Lect.  iit. 

been  at  times  great  faith  placed  in  the  recent  Jewish 
tradition  that  Ezra  founded  a  Great  Synagogue  of 
learned  men  which  compiled  the  Canon  and  fixed 
it.  This  rests  on  no  good  authority  ;  but  it  is  only 
a  popular  and  legendary  way  of  accounting  for  the 
fact  that  an  authoritative  Canon  existed/  While 
many  theories  have  been  published  among  us  re- 
garding the  age  of  some  of  the  books  of  the  Old 
Testament,  there  can  scarcely  be  doubt  or  denial 
that  the  Hebrew  Canon  which  we  now  have  was 
the  Jewish  Bible  in  the  days  of  Christ.  Even  if 
there  were  some  doubts  of  Esther  at  that  time,  or 
in  the  early  Christian  centuries,  they  were  no 
more  than  exist  on  the  same  subject  in  our  OAvn 
day.  The  book  of  Esther  was  written  to  record 
a  marvellous  deliverance  of  the  Jews  in  the 
Persian  Empire,  and  to  commend  the  observance 
of  the  feast  of  Purim  in  memory  of  it.  The  fes- 
tival came  from  a  foreign  land,  and  although 
eventually  it  became  most  popular,  it  does  not 
seem  to  have  occupied  any  such  place  when  Christ 
was  upon  earth ;  and  indeed  its  chief  popularity 
was  of  later  date,  when  the  Jews,  who  interpolated 
curses  in  the  reading  of  the  villainies  of  Haman, 
could  think  of  the  Christians  and  mentally  curse 
them  when  they  anathematized  the  memory  of 
their    Persian  foe.      The    slow   acceptance    of  the 

^  The  men  of  the  Great  Synagogue  are  said  to  have  written  Ezekiel, 
the  Twelve  Prophets,  Daniel,  and  Esther.  Some  think  that  this  refers 
to  the  Assembly  convened  by  Nehemiah. 


Lect.  in.]  ESTHER  AND  DANIEL.  77 

book  was  due  to  its  being  without  any  mention 
of  the  Divine  Being,  and  to  its  having  a  foreign 
origin. 

So  also   it  is  quite  true  that  Daniel's  place  was 
not   among   the    prophets   as    in    our    Bible,    but 
among   the  miscellaneous    writings   which   formed 
the  third  division  of  the   Canon.      But  this   does 
not   mean  that   Daniel   was   of  small   account   in 
those  days.     The  Alexandrian  translators,  followed 
by  the  Vulgate  and  other  versions,  set  Daniel  after 
Ezekiel   as    the    fourth    of    the    major    prophets. 
Though  the   date   of  this  is    uncertain,    it   cannot 
have  been  very  late.     But  the  Hebrew  Canon  set 
him  among  the  miscellaneous  writings.     It  is  not 
easy  to  say  why.     The  idea  of  some  Jewish  com- 
mentators,   that   the  three    divisions    marked   the 
three    degrees    of    inspiration,    the   law,    the    pro- 
phets, and  the  ^  writings '  representing  a  descend- 
ing scale,  is  sufficiently  disproved  by  the  fact  that 
in  the  third  division  were  the  Psalms.     It  seems 
most  probable    that  chronology  decided  the  place 
of  the  divisions   of  the  Jewish  Bible,  though  not 
of  the  books  within  each  division.     The  law  came 
before    the    prophets ;    but    the    prophets,    which 
included  the  history,  came  before  the  miscellaneous 
writings.       And   hence    the    order    of  those  three 
divisions.     But  the  second  and  third  divisions  were 
not  regarded  as  closed  till  long  after  the  first  of 
the  books  in  them  were  accepted  as  divine  ;  and 


"78  FORMATTOX  OF  A  CAXOX.  [Lect.  iir. 

elates  do  not  seem  to  have  decided  the  place  of 
the  several  books.  Thus  in  the  second  division, 
Jeremiah,  though  a  later  proj)het,  ^vas  before 
Hosea  and  Amos.  In  the  third  division,  Ruth 
comes  a^fter  the  Psalms,  which  was  lonof  an  un- 
finished  book  ;  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  after  Esther. 
And  in  the  third  division  also,  Canticles  and 
Ecclesiastes,  which  were  believed  to  be  Solomon's, 
were  set  beside  Esther.^  These  books,  with  Ruth 
and  Lamentations,  were  called  Megillotli  or  volumes, 
because  they  were  each  written  on  ?.  separate  roll. 
The  position  of  Daniel  in  the  Hebrew  Bible, 
therefore,  before  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  in  the  same 
subdivision  with  them^  and  Chronicles,  does  not 
give  us  much  assurance  as  to  his  age,  although  it 
increases  our  perplexity  when  we  find  him  so  far 
from  Ezekiel,  and  not  beside  the  other  prophets 
of  the  captivity  or  of  the  return. 

It  is  more  important,  and  it  is  for  our  present 
purpose  sufficient,  to  keep  in  mind  that  whatever 
may  have  been  the  principle  on  which  particular 
books  were  assigned  to  their  several  places  in  the 
Hebrew  Canon,  or  the  principle  on  which  the 
order  was  so  varied,  that  Canon  itself  was  regarded 

^  Even  if  we  accept  the  Jewish  subdivision  into  Kethubim  Rishouim, 
Ketanim,  and  Acheronim  (see  before,  p.  73,  note),  we  cannot  see  how  in 
this  last  class  should  be  included  Daniel,  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  and  Chronicles, 
while  Esther  is  in  the  previous  class  along  with  the  works  of  Solomon, 

2  It  does  not  seem  possible  to  hold  by  '  subjectivity '  as  the  character- 
istic of  the  third  division.  This  might  perhaps  give  a  place  to  Daniel, 
but  not  to  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  and  Esther. 


Lect.  III.]  .  SOME  BOOKS  DOUBTED.  79 

as  closed  before  our  Lord  came,  in  this  sense  that 
no  one  thouo^ht  of  addino-  to  it.     It  is  absurd  to 
magnify  the   controversies  regarding   this  or  that 
book  into  a  general  uncertainty  as  to  there  being 
a  Canon.     The  LXX.  was  made  two  or  three  cen- 
turies before  Christ ;  the  Hebrew  Canon  was  com- 
plete before  that  time  ;  and  the  lingering  disputes 
no  more  unsettled  the  whole  question  of  a  Canon 
than  disputes  in  our  own  day  as  to  Jude  or  Peter 
unsettle  it.      Doubts  as  to  Esther  came  down  into 
the  Christian  Church,  though  the  Jews  exalted  its 
popularity^  and  these  doubts  have  an  existence  (only 
half-acknowledged)  in  our  own  day.     The  doubts  as 
to  Solomon's  Song  are  said  to  have  been  ended  by 
the  strong  assertion  of  Rabbi  Akiba   (about  a.d. 
120),  that  the   day   it  was  made  was  the  best  day 
the  world  ever  saw.^      There  were   doubts   as  to 
Ecclesiastes  also.     But  those  difficulties  regarded 
the  right  of  four  or  five  particular  books  to  be  in 
the  Canon  ;  the  very  doubts  show  that  the  fact  of 
a  Canon  existing  was  well  understood.     No    one 
supposed  that  any  new  book  could  be  added  to  it, 
or  that  any  book  was  in  it  which  was  of  later  date 
than  about  a  century  after  the  Babylonian  exile. 
The   dispute  as   to  the  writings  of  Solomon   had 
reference    only   to   their    being   really   Solomon's. 
Had  they  been  known  to  be   of  later  date  they 

1  '  No  day  in  the  whole  history  of  the  world  is  of  so  much  worth  as 
the  one  in  which  the  Song  of  Songs  was  given  to  Israel ;  for  all  the 
Scriptures  are  holy,  but  the  Song  of  Songs  is  most  holy.' 


80  FORMATION  OF  A  CANON.  [Lect.  hi. 

would  not  have  been  considered  at  all.  The  book 
of  Daniel,  too,  would  not  have  been  in  the  Canon 
had  not  the  Jews  believed  that  it  was  the  work 
of  the  worthy  whose  name  was  so  great  among  the 
men  of  the  captivity  that  Ezekiel  reckoned  him 
with  Noah  and  Job  (Ezek.  xiv.  14,  20,  xxviii.  3). 
Josephus  was  expressing  the  Jewish  conviction 
when  he  said  : 

'  We  have  not  myriads  of  books  incongruous  and  conflicting  ; 
there  are  among  us  only  two-and-tweuty  books  which  have  the 
record  of  all  time,  which  are  justly  accepted  as  divine.  .  .  .  From 
the  death  of  Moses  till  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes,  who  succeeded 
Xerxes  as  king  of  the  Persians,  the  prophets  following  Moses 
wrote  the  things  done  in  their  times  iu  thirteen  books.  The 
remaining  four  contain  hymns  to  God,  and  counsels  for  men. 
But  from  the  time  of  Artaxerxes  until  our  times,  there  have 
indeed  been  several  books  written,  but  they  have  not  been 
accounted  worthy  of  like  credit  to  those  which  were  earlier, 
because  there  was  not  the  exact  succession  of  prophets  since  that 
time.^  And  how  firmly  we  have  given  credit  to  those  books  of 
our  own  nation  is  evident  by  what  we  do ;  for  during  so  many 
ages  as  have  already  passed,  no  one  has  been  so  bold  as  either 
to  add  anything  to  them,  or  to  take  anything  from  them,  or  to 
make  any  change  in  them  ;  but  it  is  become  natural  to  all  Jews, 
immediately  and  from  their  very  birth,  to  esteem  those  books  to 
contain  divine  doctrines,  and  to  persist  in  them,  and  if  occasion  be, 
willingly  to  die  for  them  '  (C.  Apion^  i.  8). 

AVe  have  been  speaking  of  the  Hebrew  Canon 
because  it  was  the   original  and   the  true  Canon. 

1  Josephus'  enuraeratiou  of  22  is  thus  made  up  :  Five  books  of  Moses. 
Thirteen  prophets,  viz.— 1.  Joshua ;  2.  Judges  and  Ruth ;  3.  Samuel ; 
4.  Kings ;  5.  Chronicles ;  6.  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  ;  7.  Esther ;  8.  Isaiah  ; 
9.  Jeremiah  and  liamentations ;  10.  Ezekiel;  11.  Daniel;  12.  the 
Twelve  Minor  Prophets  ;  13.  Job  (?).  Four  books  of  hymns  and  counsels, 
viz.  Psalms  and  the  writings  of  Solomon. 


Lect.  III.]  THE  ALEXA^'DPJAX  CANON.  81 

The  Alexandrian  Canon,  which  we  find  in  the 
Septuagint  Version,  was  not  so  soon  closed.  The 
origin  of  this  Version  is  obscure,  but  we  may 
assume  that  it  (or  at  least  the  Pentateuch  part  of 
it)  w^as  made  in  Egypt  during  the  reign  of  Ptolemy 
Soter,  or  of  his  son  Philadelphus,  B.C.  298-247, 
who  wished  to  complete  the  great  library  by  adding 
to  it  the  sacred  books  of  the  Jews.  The  idea 
therefore  does  not  seem  to  have  sprung  from 
Jewish  piety,  but  from  the  literary  taste  of  an 
enlightened  heathen.  Not  only  did  Ptolemy  set 
the  Jewish  Bible  in  his  library,  but  he  signalized 
the  event  by  ransoming  at  great  cost  the  Jewish 
captives  in  his  kingdom,  more  than  100,000  in 
number.  The  Pentateuch  was  not  only  the  first, 
but  also  the  most  carefully  translated  portion  of 
the  Old  Testament,  and  the  other  books  were 
translated  not  very  long  afterwards,  though  there 
seems  to  have  been  no  authoritative  revision  or 
even  unity  of  work.  Among  commercial  Jews 
in  cities  on  the  Mediterranean,  and  in  Palestine 
itself,  Greek  became  more  and  more  the  language 
of  daily  use  ;  and  a  Greek  translation  of  the 
Scriptures  was  indispensable  if  the  Bible  was  to 
be  intelligently  used  in  the  synagogue.  Even 
when  the  Bible  was  read  in  Hebrew,  there  was 
given  a  translation  or  paraphrase  in  Aramaic  or 
Greek,  as  the  case  might  be.  But  the  fixed  trans- 
lation soon  superseded  paraphrases,  and  before  the 

F 


82  FORMATION  OF  A  CANOX.  [Lect.  hi. 

Christian  era  the  Septuagint  had  in  many  places 
supplanted  the   Hebrew  in   the    estimation  of  or- 
dinary  Jews.       After    Christianity   prevailed,    the 
Greek   grew   in   popular   favour   with   Christians ; 
many  of  the  Fathers,  from  Irenaeus  onwards  (some 
of  them  ignorant  of  Hebrew),  ascribed  inspiration 
to  the  translation  as  well  as  to  the  original.     The 
fabulous  story  as  to  the  translators  being  shut  up 
in  separate  cells,  and  upon  conference  finding  that 
they  had  miraculously  hit  upon  the  same  words  in 
their  translation,  a  story  w^hich  with  many  varia- 
tions is  found  in    many  places,  shows  how"  great 
was   the  reverence  paid  to  the  Greek.     We  find 
the  first  form  of  the  legend  in  a  statement  that 
the  translators  were  prophets,  agreeing  by  inspira- 
tion on  the  terms  they  used.     In  this  belief  Jews 
and  others  went  to  the  Isle  of  Pharos  to  hold  a 
yearly   festival   in    honour    of  the  great   work   of 
translation  which  was  there  accomplished.     But  at 
a  later  date  we    read   (Justin)    of  the   translators 
being  in  seventy  cells,   or   by  twos    in   thirty-six 
cells ;  always  with  the  same  miraculous  agreement 
in  the  end  when  they  compared  their  notes. ^     In 
this  Greek  Old  Testament  there  are  additions  made 
to  the  Hebrew  Daniel,  and  Esther,  and  Chronicles, 
and   Jeremiah ;    and   whole    books    (as    2    Esdras, 
2  Mace,  and  Wisdom)  are  added,  of  which  no  part 
ever  existed  in  Hebrew. 

^  Josephus  is  too  cautious  to  say  all  this,  Ant.  xii.  2. 


Lect.  III.]    RESULTS  OF  COMMERCIAL  INTERCOURSE.     83 

There  is  nothing  surprising  in  this.  The  natural 
result  of  large  commercial  intercourse  with  many 
lands  is  to  make  men  tolerant,  considerate,  and 
eclectic.  It  also  tends  to  a  loose  grasp  of  first 
principles  in  matters  where  personal  interests  are 
not  immediately  concerned.  And  thus  the  Alex- 
andrian who  was  in  the  emporium  of  the  world 
saw  much  that  was  good  in  many  systems  and 
religions  which  acknowledged  no  good  in  one 
another.  He  anticipated  to  a  large  extent 
the  modern  study  of  comparative  religion ;  the 
sympathetic  study,  that  is  to  say,  with  the  pur- 
pose and  hope  of  discovering  what  is  best  in  each 
and  what  is  common  to  all.  Even  a  Hebrew 
felt  the  influence  of  the  place  ;  and  while  he  pre- 
ferred his  nation  and  its  books  to  everything  else 
in  the  world,  he  did  not  feel  so  assured  as  were  his 
kindred  still  in  Palestine  that  the  age  of  prophecy 
and  of  revelation  had  come  to  a  close.  The  Jew 
of  Palestine  believed  that  no  books  in  the  whole 
world  were  to  be  put  near  to  those  which  Jehovah 
had  given  to  the  Hebrew  fathers  ;  the  tongue  of 
Abraham  and  of  Jacob  was  the  one  only  language 
of  inspiration.  All  books  of  Greek  origin  were 
worthless  to  him  in  comparison  with  the  Hebrew 
books  ;  and  he  would  have  none  of  them.  But 
the  Jew  of  Alexandria,  just  because  those  Greek 
books  spake  to  him  in  the  language  of  his  daily 
life,    was    inclined   to    welcome    them.      He    read 


84  FORMATION  OF  A  CANON.  [Lect.  hi; 

Moses  in  the  Greek  tongue ;  lie  had  felt  the 
potency  of  inspired  teaching  through  the  medium 
of  that  translation.  So  when  another  Greek  book 
came  to  him,  claiming  to  have  been  written  in 
Hebrew,  and  almost  asserting  that  it  was  inspired, 
he  was  not  inclined  to  reject  it.  Its  words  were  : 
*  I  will  yet  pour  forth  doctrine  as  prophecy, 
and  leave  it  to  all  ao^es  for  ever.  Behold  that 
I  have  not  laboured  for  myself  only,  but  for  all 
them  that  seek  wisdom '  (Ecclus.  xxiv.  33,  34). 
It  seemed  to  him  that  the  Spirit  of  wisdom, 
of  which  that  same  book  sang  as  not  only 
'established  in  Zion,'  but  as  'taking  root  in 
an  honourable  people,  even  in  the  portion  of 
the  Lord's  inheritance'  (Ecclus.  xxiv.  10,  12), 
might  still  be  surviving  and  speaking  unto 
men.^  That  book,  indeed,  was  said  to  have  been 
originally  in  Hebrew.  But  another  notable  book 
which  was  never  written  in  Hebrew  said  : 
'  Wisdom  in  all  ages,  entering  into  holy  souls, 
maketh  friends  of  God  and  prophets '  (Wisd. 
vii.  27).  In  the  spirit  of  that  claim  the  Alex- 
andrian Jew  gave  sacred  reverence  to  many 
books  from  which  his  Palestinian  brother  turned 
away  with  scorn.  Into  his  translation  of  the  most 
sacred  Hebrew  books  also  crept  certain  additions, 
as    when    translations    of    Baruch '    and    of    the 

1  See  Oehler,  Art.  '  Kanon '  in  Herzog's  Realencyc.  vii.  255. 

2  Said  by  Origen  to  have  been  in  some    Hebrew  texts  of  the  Old 
Testament. 


Lect.  III.]  HELLENISTIC  VIEWS.  85 

Epistle  of  Jeremiah  were  added  to  the  writings 
of  Jeremiah  in  the  Septuagint  Version  of  the 
Bible. 

Thus  it  came  about  that  in  the  LXX.  or  Bible 
of  the  Hellenistic — or  foreign — Jews  were  many 
books  or  portions  of  books  not  in  the  Hebrew 
Canon.  Those  are  the  writings  known  to  us  as 
The  Apocrypha.  It  also  followed  that  among  the 
Hellenists  the  Canon  could  not  be  regarded  as 
closed  at  the  same  time  and  in  the  same  sense  as 
among  the  Hebrew-speaking  Jews. 

But,  nevertheless,  it  is  not  correct  to  speak  as 
thouofh  even  the  Hellenists  reofarded  the  Canon  as 
open,  or  attached  to  those  added  books  the  same 
authority  as  to  the  Bible  itself.  Philo  is  the  best 
representative  of  the  Hellenist,  and  he  never 
quotes  an  Apocryphal  book,  although  his  notions 
of  inspiration  were  so  elastic  that  he  claimed  to  be 
himself  inspired.  His  mode  of  handling  the  law 
of  Moses  shows  that  he  recognised  revelation  as 
a  special  form  of  inspiration.^  The  Fourth  Book 
of  Esdras  speaks  of  only  twenty -four  books  openly 
jDublished  so  that  all  men  may  read,  thus  ignoring 
the  Apocryphal  additions.  We  have  seen  that 
Josephus,  who,  however,  to  a  certain  extent  admits 
the  additions  to  Esther,  distino^uishes  between  the 
canonical  books  and  all  those  of  later  date.  He 
was  not,  like  Philo,  an  Alexandrian  sage ;  but  he 

^  Philo,  De  Vita  Contempl.  §  3. 


86  FORMATION  OF  A  CANON.  [Lect.  hi. 

thoroughly  understood  the  position  of  his  country- 
men in  all  lands. 

On  the  whole,  therefore,  we  must  conclude  that, 
while  the  Alexandrian  Bible  in  common  use  con- 
tained many  additions  to  the  Hebrew  Bible,  and 
while  doubtless  the  ordinary  readers  were  likely 
to  set  the  original  and  the  additions  on  the  same 
level,  there  is  no  good  ground  for  concluding  that 
the  more  thoughtful  Jew^s,  even  of  Alexandria,  had 
lost  the  principle  of  the  distinction  between  what 
we  may  call  canonical  and  extra- canonical  books. 
In  the  Christian  Church,  under  the  influence  of 
the  same  conditions,  the  fathers — after  Justin 
Martyr,  who  never  directly  cites  the  Apocrypha — 
were  chargeable  with  a  far  higher  exaltation  of 
the  Greek  Apocrypha  than  the  Jews  themselves 
were.  It  w^as  on  account  of  Christian  preferences 
that  such  men  as  Origen  did  not  venture  to 
remove  from  the  Old  Testament  what  Avas  not 
found  in  the  original  Hebrew  text.  He  says  of 
the  additions  to  Esther,  that  it  would  be  ill-done 
to  reject  the  sacred  books  in  their  form  received  by 
Christians,  and  to  defer  to  the  Jews ;  and  that 
such  rejection  would  also  throw  doubt  on  the 
loving  care  of  Divine  Providence  for  the  word 
which  He  had  given  to  those  for  whom  Christ 
died  {Letter  to  Africanus,  p.  14).  The  Christian 
predilection  for  the  Greek  Version,  as  being  under- 
stood at  first  over  nearly  the  whole  known  world  ; 


Lect.  III.]        LATER  JEWS  AND  APOCRYPHA.  87 

the  fact  that  the  old  Latin  Version  was  translated 
from  it  and  not  from  the  Hebrew,  and  contained 
all  its  books  ;  and  the  favour  of  leading  Christians 
for  individual  books  contained  in  the  Apocryphal 
portions, — tended  to  drive  all  non-Christian  Jews 
everywhere  (and  the  Nazarene  Christians  also)  into 
a  more  devoted  adherence  to  the  Hebrew  Canon ; 
and  as  Hebrew  learning  revived,  as  rabbinical 
teachings  were  preserved  and  classified,  the  Hebrew 
Bible  and  the  Hebrew  Canon  rose  to  entire  pre- 
dominance among  the  Jews,  while  some  Christians 
were  superstitiously  ascribing  inspiration  to  the 
Greek  translators  from  whom  came  the  Septuagint/ 
At  a  later  time  the  Jews  held  a  yearly  fast  on 
account  of  the  translation.  Darkness  covered  the 
earth  for  three  days,  they  said,  when  the  law  was 
written  in  Greek  in  the  days  of  King  Ptolemy. 
Even  among  the  Christians  the  deliberate  changes 
in  the  Hebrew  Canon  are  confined  to  the  omission 
of  Esther  and  the  addition  of  Baruch  f  and  the 
Hebrew  Canon  as  a  whole  is  the  only  one  dis- 
tinctly recognised  during  the  first  four  centuries, 
though  individual  Christian  writers  (as  Clement 
of  Alexandria)  reverenced  single  books  in  the 
Greek  supplementary  collection. 

1  Iren^us,  iii.  25  ;  Clem.  Alex.,  Strom,  i.  22,  §  149  ;  Aug.,  Civ.  Pei, 
xviii.  43.  See  Justin  Martyr,  Dial.  chap.  68,  in  proof  of  his  sayiug 
one  thing  and  Jews  another  about  the  LXX. 

2  See  the  catalogues  in  Westcott's  article  'Canon'  in  Smith's 
Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  vol.  i.  p.  256. 


88  FORMATION  OF  A  CANON.  [Lect.  hi. 

And  what,  then,  was  the  view  of  the  first 
Christians  ?  What  was  the  position  taken  by 
Jesus  Himself?  It  is  remarkable,  but  after  the 
facts  we  have  noted  it  is  not  surprising,  that  Jesus 
Christ  never  quotes  the  Apocrypha.  Nor  does 
any  one  of  His  apostles  whose  writings  have  come 
down  to  us.  There  are  passages  in  the  Epistles 
which  refer  to  Jewish  legends  or  traditions,  as 
when  Jude  speaks  of  Michael's  contention  with 
Satan  for  the  body  of  Moses,  or  when  the  writer 
to  the  Hebrews  recounts  some  incidents  of 
Maccabean  martyrdom  ;  but  those  allusions  to  a 
knowledge  of  history  or  tradition  outside  of  the 
Bible  are  very  different  from  the  use  of  the  Old 
Testament.  Not  incidentally,  but  habitually,  the 
writers  of  the  New  Testament  lean  upon  the  Old 
Testament  for  proof  of  doctrine,  even  for  the  test 
of  truth.  And  of  any  such  use  of  any  book  outside 
of  the  Hebrew  Canon  there  is  not  a  trace.  There 
are  some  real  and  some  apparent  quotations  from 
other  sources,  but  at  the  most  they  are  only 
literary  quotations.  It  may  be  a  mere  coincidence, 
but  it  is  at  least  noteworthy,  that  the  only  books 
of  the  Old  Testament  not  quoted  in  the  New  are 
the  three  books  of  the  writings  of  Solomon,  Esther, 
and  Ezra  and  Nehemiah.  Ezra  and  Nehemiah 
are  historical  books,  which  there  was  probably  no 
occasion  to  quote;  but  the  other  four  unquoted 
books — Esther,    Proverbs,    Ecclesiastes,    and   Can- 


Lect.  III.]  OLD  TESTAMENT  IX  NEW.  89 

tides — are  those  books  which  were  not  accepted 
by  all  at  the  time  of  our  Lord.  Our  Lord's  ex- 
ample of  reverence  for  the  Old  Testament  was 
followed  by  the  disciples,  who  habitually  read  it 
in  their  meetings,  as  had  been  customary  in  the 
synagogue.  The  reading  of  the  Old  Testament 
was  thus  an  integral  part  of  Christian  worship  from 
the  first,  as  we  may  learn  explicitly  from  a  well- 
known  passage  in  Justin  Martyr's  First  Apology. 
'  On  the  day  called  Sunday  all  dwellers  in  town  or 
country  are  convened,  and  the  memoirs  of  the 
apostles  and  the  waitings  of  the  prophets  are  read 
so  long  as  time  permits'  (Justin,  Apol.  i.  c.  67). 
And  again  the  same  writer  says  :  '  When  ye  hear 
the  prophets  read  as  though  they  were  personally 
addressing  you,  do  not  count  that  what  is  said 
comes  from  men  self- inspired,  but  regard  it  as 
coming  from  the  Divine  Logos  that  moved  them ' 
(c.  36).  Ignatius  speaks  of  the  prophets  whose 
announcements  led  up  to  the  gospel.  And  so 
wdth  the  other  fathers.  They  all  teach,  as  Paul 
taught,  that  the  Old  Testament  is  Scripture  in- 
spired of  God,  and  therefore  profitable  for  doctrine, 
for  reproof,  for  correction,  and  for  instruction  in 
righteousness  (2  Tim.  iii.  16).  They  had  learned 
from  Christ  Himself  to  teach  the  Jews.  ^  If  ye 
believed  Moses,  ye  would  believe  me  :  for  he  wrote 
of  me'  (John  v.  46). 

Thus,  then,  we  find  that,  when  our  Lord  came  to 


90  FORMATION  OF  A  CANON.  [Lect.  hi. 

the  earth,  there  was  a  collection  of  sacred  writings 
believed  to  be  closed — a  collection  to  which  no  word 
had  been  added  for  several  hundred  years.  Jesus 
Himself  acknowledged  the  authority  of  this  sacred 
book,  and  at  t>he  outset  of  His  ministry  declared 
that  He  did  not  come  to  destroy  but  to  fulfil  it 
(Matt.  V.  17).  His  apostles  never  failed  to  make 
solemn  and  special  acknowledgment  of  the  divine 
authority  of  that  book,  all  whose  words  must  needs 
be  fulfilled.  In  their  estimation,  no  word  had  been 
spoken  like  it ;  the  other  things  which  men  prided 
themselves  upon  and  studied  were  cunningly  devised 
fables  or  mere  traditions  of  men.  '  But  the  things 
which  God  foreshadowed  by  the  mouth  of  all  the 
prophets,  that  Christ  should  sufifer,  He  thus  ful- 
filled' (Acts  iii.  18).  ^  Yea,  and  all  the  prophets 
from  Samuel  and  them  that  followed  after,  as 
many  as  have  spoken,  they  also  told  of  these  days ' 
(Acts  iii.  24). 

The  marvellous  claim  of  the  writers  of  the  New 
Testament  acquires  its  chief  significance  when  we 
keep  in  mind  this  conviction  of  theirs,  and  of  all 
men's,  regarding  the  Old  Testament.  They  claim 
for  their  own  writings  a  place  beside  those  sacred 
books.  It  is  not  possible  to  deny  that  every  one 
of  them,  from  the  beginning  of  the  New  Testament 
to  the  end  of  it,  asserts  that  he  writes  by  the 
inspiration  of  the  living  God,  whose  word  is  the 
Old  Testament  Scripture.     The  Evangelists  do  not, 


Lect.  III.]  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  CLAIM.  91 

indeed,  obtrude  their  own  personality,  but  they 
claim  to  write  as  men  that  had  reaped  the  fruits  of 
the  Spirit  promised  as  the  Paraclete,  who  Avas  sent 
to  teach  the  truth  and  the  meaning  of  the  life  of 
Christ.  They  not  only  record  certain  words  as 
having  come  from  the  lips  of  the  Master,  but  they 
often  undertake  explicitly  to  say  what  those  words 
meant  [e.g.  '  He  spake  of  the  temple  of  His  body'], 
and  they  always  imply  that  the  meaning  was  that 
which  they  convey.  When  Jesus  had  risen  from 
the  dead,  they  say  that  they  understood  the  meaning 
of  the  words  He  had  used.  The  question  on  w^hich 
evidence  is  being  taken  in  the  ceaseless  controversy 
of  the  Church  w^ith  the  world,  is  that  of  their  being 
truthful  men  ;  but  we  must  not  therefore  forget 
that,  if  this  be  granted,  then  it  follows  that  they 
were  men  guided  by  God  in  what  they  had  to 
say.  There  is  not  in  any  other  book  w^hich  has 
come  down  to  us  a  claim  like  that  made  by  those 
historians,  who  assert  with  undemonstrative  con- 
fidence that  they  are  trustworthy  interpreters  of 
the  mystery  of  godliness  which  was  manifest  in 
the  flesh  when  Jesus  Christ  dwelt  among  men.  A 
book  which  made  such  a  claim  as  this,  and  which 
made  it  good,  must  of  necessity  take  the  first  place 
in  human  reverence  and  esteem. 

Take,  in  the  same  way,  the  Epistles.  Take  the 
earliest  of  them,  the  Thessalonian  letters  of  St. 
Paul  (1  Thess.  ii.   13).     There  is,  on  his  part,  no 


92  FORMATION  OF  A  CANON.  [Lect.  hi. 

hesitation  in  making  a  claim  of  authority  when  he 
says  that  the  word  the  Thessalonians  had  heard 
w^as  not  the  word  of  men,  but  of  a  verity  the  word 
of  God,  or  when  he  reminds  them,  in  the  Second 
Epistle,  that  his  is  a  saving  word,  in  which  they 
are  bound  to  stand  fast  and  firm.  ^  So  then, 
brethren,  stand  fast,  and  hold  the  traditions  which 
ye  were  taught,  whether  by  word,  or  by  epistle  of 
ours'  (2  Thess.  ii.  15).  He  tells  the  Corinthians 
(1  Cor.  vii.  17)  that  he  gives  authoritative  direction 
{piaTaao-oixai)  in  all  the  churches  of  the  Lord.  He 
dares  to  say  an  anathema  to  fermenting  Galatia  on 
the  man  or  the  angel  who  teaches  a  different  gospel 
from  his — from  his  which  he  received  neither  from 
a  human  source  nor  by  human  means,  but  through 
the  direct  and  immediate  agency  of  Jesus  Christ 
and  of  God  the  Father. 

John's  First  Epistle  begins  with  the  declaration 
that,  when  the  writer  speaks  of  the  manifestation 
of  life  in  the  Word,  he  tells  of  that  which  he 
thoroughly  knew  on  the  evidence  of  his  mind  and 
his  senses,  but  he  significantly  appends  to  that 
statement  the  assurance  that  his  ^  fellowship'  was 
with  the  Father  and  the  Son  Jesus  Christ,  and  that 
his  object  in  writing  was  that  his  readers  might 
be  raised  to  the  same  fellowship.  Throughout  the 
Epistle  he  writes  from  within  the  sanctuary  of 
fellowship  with  God,  without  doubt  or  misgiving 
as  to  his  authority.     The  seer  of  the  Apocalypse 


Lect.  III.]  CLAIM  OF  THE  EPISTLES.  93 

denounces  woes  upon  all  who  tamper  with  the  words 
of  his  prophecy,  and  calls  on  all  men  to  hear  what 
the  Spirit  said  through  him  to  the  churches. 

There  is  no  such  explicit  claim  in  the  Epistle  of 
James ;  but  James  uses  the  words  and  the  authority 
of  the  Old  Testament  prophets  in  such  a  way  as  to 
challenge  comparison  of  the  substance  and  the  form 
of  his  messasfe  with  theirs.  No  book  of  the  New 
Testament  takes  this  position  more  distinctly  ;  and 
when  we  keep  in  mind  that  James  wrote  to  the 
twelve  tribes,  to  the  men  who,  unlike  the  heathen, 
had  a  Bible  and  obeyed  it,  and  looked  up  to  it  as 
the  voice  of  God,  the  deliberate  claim  made  b}^  this 
Christian  teacher  to  occupy  the  same  position  as  the 
prophets  of  ancient  Israel  is  specially  significant. 

Peter,  though  humble  and  penitent,  always 
writing  like  a  man  under  the  shadow  of  the  great 
denial,  still  took  the  position  of  one  who  had  a 
commission  to  teach,  who  looked  back  to  the  suifer- 
ings  of  Christ  as  a  witness,  and  forward  to  the  glory 
in  which  he  would  share ;  one  who  had  received  a 
special  charge  to  feed  the  flock  of  God,  and  who 
could  therefore  without  presumption  exhort  even 
the  elders  (1  Peter  v.  1),  and  could  declare  that  the 
living  voice  of  God  from  on  high  had  made  the  old 
word  of  prophecy  more  sure. 

And  even  Jude  not  only  claims  a  right  to  exhort, 
but  calls  upon  his  beloved  readers  to  remember  the 
words  which  had  been  spoken  before  by  the  apostles 


94  FORMATION  OF  A  CANON.  [Lect.  hi. 

of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  The  meaning  of  this  is 
clearly,  as  in  Second  Peter,  to  build  up  the  Church 
in  that  faith  which  was  expounded  in  the  words  not 
only  of  Christian  teachers  but  of  Christian  writers 
(2  Peter  iii.  16).  When  Peter  refers  to  the  Epistles 
of  his  beloved  brother  Paul  as  '  Scriptures '  which 
Hhe  ignorant  and  unstedfast  wrest,  as  they  do  also 
the  other  Scriptures,  unto  their  own  destruction,' 
he  is  claiming  for  Paul's  writings  a  place  beside 
the  ancient  Bible  of  the  Jews. 

And  this,  as  we  have  shown  in  detail,  is  the 
remarkable  and  indeed  unparalleled  claim  made  by 
the  New  Testament  as  a  whole,  and  admitted  by 
the  Christian  Church  with  full  knowledge  of  its 
significance.^ 

1  The  foregoing  argument  and  statement  are  of  course  directly  contra- 
dictory of  the  theory  that  the  early  Christians  did  not  admit  the  special 
inspiration  or  divine  authority  of  any  other  books  than  those  of  the 
O.  T.,  which  had  come  down  to  them  from  remote  antiquity.  '  The  Holy 
Ghost,'  says  Reuss  {Gesch.  der  heiligen  Schriften  Gesch.  N.  T.,  §  285), 
'  who  once  rested  on  a  few  prophets  only,  had  now  been  shared  in  by 
all  the  chosen  of  Christ,  and  nobody  was  able  and  willing  to  ascribe  to 
himself  or  to  any  other  disciple  an  exclusive  inspiration.'  And  in  his 
notes  he  observes  that  in  the  enumeration  of  gifts  (Rom.  xii.  and 
1  Cor.  xii.)  there  is  no  special  gift  of  writing.  But  it  must,  on  the 
other  hand,  be  observed  that  St.  Paul  and  the  other  writers  of  the 
N.  T.  claimed  for  themselves  this  very  thing,  that  they  had  autlioritii 
to  write.  They  stood  apart  from  the  rest,  first  of  all  as  apostles, 
whose  calling  in  the  Church  was  of  God  (and  '  not  of  men,  neither  by 
men,  nor  through  men,'  as  others  were  called)  ;  and  when  Paul  wrote, 
he  explicitly  asserted  that  his  were  regulative  and  decisive  words  in 
writing  as  they  were  when  spoken.  Theories  that  when  'the  Holy 
Ghost  fell  on  all,'  then  all  were  raised  to  the  level  of  the  apostles,  must 
be  recast,  if  it  is  intended  to  make  them  consistent  with  the  facts. 


LECTURE  IV. 

THE    EARLY    CHURCH    AND    THE    CANONICAL   BOOKS    OF 
THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

When  we  seek  to  look  more  closely  into  the 
history  of  the  reception  of  our  Christian  books  in 
the  Church,  we  are  met  by  the  fact  of  a  great 
chasm  in  our  annals.  The  early  years  of  Christian 
history  have  no  record  save  what  we  find  in  the 
New  Testament  itself  Even  that  is  fragmentary. 
The  life  of  the  Lord  is  told  with  some  fulness  by 
the  four  Evangelists,  but  regarding  the  next 
period — the  first  period  of  the  Church  when  the 
Lord  had  risen — we  have  only  a  few  detached 
notices  in  one  book,  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
and  we  glean  some  things  from  allusions  in  the 
Epistles,  which  bring  us  down  to  about  the  middle 
of  the  first  century.  The  second  half  of  that 
century  is  nearly  blank.  From  the  time  when  we 
leave  Paul  in  his  own  hired  house  at  Rome,  a 
hundred  years  come  and  go  before  we  have  any 
connected  narrative  of  the  fortunes  of  the  Church  of 
Christ.  At  the  end  of  that  time  we  are  on  the 
beaten  paths  of  history  ;  but  during  its  course  the 


96  CANON  IN  THE  EARLY  CHURCH.        [Lect.  iv. 

whole  fortunes  of  the  Church  had  changed.  The 
little  seed  had  become  a  tree.  The  apostles  had 
gone  to  and  fro  over  the  Roman  world,  from  India  to 
Spain;  persecutors  had  thought  to  scatter  congrega- 
tions, but  had  only  multiplied  the  preachers  of  the 
Word  ;  and  the  Church  of  the  Crucified  Jesus  was  a 
powerful  force  in  the  world,  drawing  the  attention  of 
emperors  and  their  subordinates,^  to  remove  whose 
misconceptions  of  its  purposes  and  functions  the 
most  eloquent  writers  of  the  Church  employed  all 
their  force  and  skill.  The  result  was,  as  we  have 
already  learned  from  Justin  Martyr  about  a.d.  140, 
that  congregations  were  organized  everywhere,  and 
in  their  ordinary  meetings  were  engaged  in  reading 
the  memoirs  of  the  apostles  along  with  the  pro- 
phetic writings  of  the  Old  Testament.  It  would 
appear  that  the  claim  advanced  by  the  books  of  the 
New  Testament  had  been  admitted  by  the  Church. 
Our  present  purpose  is  to  try  to  indicate  how  that 
admission  was  made,  how  it  grew  from  less  to  more 
distinct,  until  before  the  end  of  the  second  century 
the  New  Testament  was  the  book  as  we  now  have 
it.  The  second  century  is  the  battle-ground  of 
criticism.  With  the  testimony  of  Irenseus  towards 
the  end  of  it,  and  of  Clement  of  Alexandria  and 
Tertulhan  at  its  close,  we  attain  to  ground  which  is 
no  longer  debateable.       Indeed   I   believe  it  may 

1  See  Pliny's  Letter  to  Trajan^  and  the  '  Imperial  Edicts,'  Canonidty^ 
pp.  362-367. 


lect.  IV.]  baur's  position.  97 

now  be  said  that  the  debate  does  not  extend 
beyond  the  middle  of  the  century,  so  that  we  can 
prove  the  books  of  our  New  Testament  to  have 
been  in  the  hands  of  men  who  had  met  and  talked 
with  the  apostles  of  the  Lord.  I  believe  it  can 
be  proved  that  the  Church  was  built  upon  the 
revelation  of  God  which  we  have  in  the  New 
Testament ;  and  that  from  the  very  first  it  recog- 
nised in  those  books  the  truth  out  of  which,  as 
proclaimed  by  apostles  and  disciples,  it  had  taken 
its  rise.  These  are,  if  we  may  so  say,  the  pro- 
positions to  be  maintained  in  this  lecture. 

Let  lis  understand  what  is  the  argument  on  the 
other  side.  It  is  that  Christianity  as  now  ex- 
hibited in  the  New  Testament  is  not  the  oriofinal 
Christianity  of  Christ,  but  a  development,  some- 
times a  perversion ;  that  it  is  far  more  doctrinal,  and 
ascribes  far  higher  attributes  to  the  person  of  Christ 
than  either  Jesus  Himself  or  His  first  disciples 
dreamed  of.  We  are  told,  that  under  the  influence 
of  Paul,  the  Christian  religion  passed  out  of  the 
stao^e  of  ethical  teachinof  into  that  of  a  doctrinal 
edifice  built  upon  Christ's  own  personality.  The 
Gospels  are  therefore  a  legendary  form  of  history, 
the  Christ  of  whom  they  tell  is  a  growth  very  dif- 
ferent from  the  Man  of  Nazareth,  if  His  simple 
life  were  truly  told.  Many  of  the  Epistles  are,  in 
like  manner,  the  outcome  of  the  growth  of  the 
Church,   and   are    of  later    date.       Only    Komans, 


98  CAXON  IN  THE  EARLY  CHURCH.        [Lect.  iv. 

Corinthians  (First  and  Second),  and  Galatians  are 
genuine.  The  only  other  genuine  book  is  the 
Apocalypse.  It  was  Ferdinand  Christian  Baur,  a 
Professor  in  Tubingen,  who  advocated  those  views 
so  ably  as  to  give  his  name  to  the  school  of 
critics  now  so  well  known.  The  point  at  issue  is 
briefly  this  :  Was  the  Church  founded  upon  the 
truth  contained  in  the  New  Testament,  or  was 
the  New  Testament  founded  on  the  ideas  and 
aspirations  of  the  Church  ?  In  other  words,  did 
the  Jesus  Christ  of  the  Gospels  live  and  die  as  the 
Gospels  tell,  or  do  these  Gospels  represent  the 
Church's  view  of  what  ought  to  have  been  ? 

It  is  obvious  that  the  counter  argument  suggested 
by  this  question  has  many  subdivisions.  There  is  an 
argument  on  grounds  of  reason  to  the  effect  that, 
without  Jesus  Christ  as  its  founder, — the  same  Jesus 
Christ  of  whom  the  Church  in  the  second  century 
testified, — Christianity  could  never  have  had  a 
beginning.  There  is  an  argument  on  the  ground  of 
general  church  history,  which  would  show  that  the 
whole  character  of  the  Church  is  inconsistent  with 
the  occurrence  of  any  important  change  at  any 
date  between  its  beginning  and  the  middle  of  the 
second  century.  But  the  central  argument  comes 
under  the  head  of  Biblical  Criticism,  and  its  pur- 
port is  that  the  scattered  notices  and  allusions  to 
the  Bedeemer's  life  and  teaching,  which  we  find 
in  the  surviving  fragments  of  the  first  Christian 


Lect.  ivJ        the  church  AND  THE  GOSPEL.  99 

literature,  are  consistent  with  the  position  of  those 
who  maintain  that  the  New  Testament  faithfully 
and  fully  represents  the  facts  upon  which  the  first 
foundations  of  the    Church  were  laid.      In  other 
words,   we  believe  the  answer  of  sound  criticism 
to  be,  that  the   earliest  literature  shows  that  the 
Church  possessed  our  Gospels  and  the  mass  of  the 
other   books    of  the   New   Testament  durinsr  the 
first   century.     It  is  with  this  last   form    or   sub- 
division of  the  answer  to  Baur  that  we  are  now 
to  be  engaged.     What  w^e  have  to  state  must  be 
an  outline,  and  no  more,  but  we  shall  try  to  mark 
the  chief  points  from  one  to  the  other  of  which  a 
student  must  pass  in  filling  up  the  outline.      It  is 
impossible  for   us   in  these   lectures   to  enter  into 
minute  details  concerning  every  book  of  the  New 
Testament,   or  even  regarding  each  of  the    books 
whose   canonicity  has  been  most  disjDuted  ;  and  I 
ask   leave  to  refer   my  hearers  who   may  be  dis- 
posed to  investigate  the  more  particular   grounds 
on  which  the  general  argument  rests,  to   the  de- 
tailed evidence  which  I   have  compiled  elsewhere 
upon  the  subject  of  the  Canon  as  a  whole,  and  of 
each  book  in  it. 

"We  begin  by  repeating  the  conclusion  to  which 
w^e  were  brought  at  the  close  of  last  lecture. 
Before  Jewish  Christians — -or  any  Christians  who 
reverenced  the  revelation  given  through  Moses — 
could  think  for  a  moment  of  setting  any  new  books 


100  CANON  IN  THE  EARLY  CHURCH.        [Lect.  iv. 

alongside  of  tlie  Old  Testament,  they  must  have 
found  new  books  which  claimed,  and  claimed  wor- 
thily, to  occupy  that  high  ground.  We  found  that 
the  books  of  the  New  Testament  do  make  such  a 
claim,  so  that  the  place  of  canonicity  to  which  they 
attained  is  not  one  to  which  they  ^  came  by  acci- 
dent.' It  is  an  inheritance  which  they  conquered 
in  accordance  with  their  claim.  For  the  present 
form  of  our  argument  it  is  immaterial  whether 
they  are  all  justified  in  making  that  claim.  It 
is  not  essential  to  our  present  purpose  that  the 
Epistles  ascribed  to  Jude  and  to  Second  Peter 
be  written  by  the  disciples  whose  names  they 
bear,  because  our  argument  has  been  that  all  the 
books  which  we  find  in  the  Canon  claim  a  place 
of  authority  for  themselves — some  claiming  it  for 
themselves  alone,  and  others  not  for  themselves 
alone,  but  for  the  whole  of  which  they  form  a 
part. 

It  is  another  step  in  the  argument  to  maintain, 
as  we  seek  now  to  do,  that  from  the  earliest  times 
of  which  we  have  record  those  books  were  acknow- 
ledged to  have  made  good  their  claim.  In  the  early 
days,  when  the  Church  was  full  of  the  new  life 
drawn  from  the  Christ  who  had  risen,  her  members 
recognised  those  books  as  also  full  of  it.  The  new 
wine  of  the  kingdom  was  found  in  those  vessels, 
the  same,  the  very  same,  as  the  Church  had  drunk 
when  poured  into  her  by  the  living  hand  of  the 


Lect.  IV.]  STRUGGLE  FOR  EXISTENCE.  101 

apostles  and  prophets  and  pastors  of  the  first  years. 
It  is  no  light  thing  this.  We  have  not  merely 
intellectual  assent  to  the  claim  of  the  books,  but 
we  have  the  testimony  of  all  those  churches  that 
their  amazing  growth  was  due  to  their  life  being 
fed  by  the  words  which  proceeded  out  of  the  mouth 
of  God,  and  were  contained  in  those  precious 
Epistles  and  Gospels. 

But  it  has  often  been  alleged  that  the  books 
which  we  now  have  were  ^  selected  by  the  Church ' 
from  among  a  host  of  competitors,  so  that  our  Canon 
is  really  the  result  of  a  ^struggle  for  existence' 
in  which  the  strono^est  won.  There  is  a  sense 
in  which  we  not  only  admit  this,  but  hold  by  it. 
Those  books  ivei^e  the  strongest,  and  at  one  time — • 
the  first  time  of  their  history — there  were  others  in 
circulation  which  have  perished  from  their  side. 
But  that  there  were  other  books  making  such  a 
claim  as  theirs,  and  that  those  books  have  perished, 
is  not  only  not  an  ascertained  fact,  but  the  ascer- 
tained facts  are  ag^ainst  it.  And  that  the  Church 
at  any  date,  or  at  any  succession  of  dates  during 
the  first  two  centuries,  took  counsel  and  resolved  to 
put  an  end  to  the  existence  of  some  books,  selecting 
certain  others  for  honour  and  permanent  estimation, 
is  a  grotesque  impossibility.  It  is  vain  for  an 
assailant  to  point  to  the  opening  words  of  Luke's 
Gospel,  as  though  the  third  Evangelist  entered  into 
competition  with  many  others.     The  position  taken 


102  CANON  IN  THE  EARLY  CHUECH.        [Lect.  iv, 

by  St.  Luke  is  that  many  others  had  '  attempted ' 
something  different  from  that  orderly  and  con- 
secutive narrative,  beginning  at  the  very  beginning, 
which  it  Avas  in  his  power  to  write.  That  there 
should  be  partial  accounts  or  digests  of  the  ^matters 
fulfilled  among  us/  was  to  be  expected, — the  Church 
in  almost  every  locality  must  have  had  some  such 
fragmentary  narratives  and  digests  which  .^  many 
took  in  hand  to  arrange/ — but  St.  Luke  at  once 
stepped  on  another  platform  with  his  Gospel. 

The  nature  of  the  case  leads  to  our  holding  that 
in  this  sense  the  strongest  of  many  narratives  are 
the  survivors  ;  but  we  have  no  proof  of  either  gospel 
or  epistle  like  those  now  in  our  possession  having 
once  existed  and  being  subsequently  lost.  The 
'  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews '  is  the  only  gospel  which 
can  for  a  moment  offer  an  apparent  contradiction  to 
this  statement.  But  it  was  not  another  and  inde- 
pendent gospel,  like  the  four  now  in  our  possession. 
It  was  our  Gospel  of  Matthew,  with  a  few  additions 
made  by  the  Jewish  Christians  among  whom  it 
circulated.  "When  those  additions  are  collected, 
and  all  the  references  to  the  book  are  compared 
with  each  other,  all  that  results  is  a  Judaeo- 
Christian  recension  of  the  Gospel  originally  written 
for  the  Hebrew  disciples  of  Jesus.^  Again,  there 
has  been  often  said  to  be  a  lost  Epistle  of  St.  Paul 
to  the  Laodiceans,  although   we   have   now  little 

^  See  Canonicity^  p.  451. 


Lect.  IV.]  BOOKS  PUBLICLY  KEAD.  103 

doubt  that  our  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  was  a 
circular  letter  of  which  another  copy  was  sent  to 
Laodicea.^  Beyond  those  we  have  no  sure  ground 
for  believing  that  books  which  could  have  belonged 
to  our  New  Testament  have  been  lost. 

It  is  of  no  avail  to  say  that  there  are  still  extant 
books  which  were  sometimes  associated  with  our 
New  Testament  in  the  public  estimation  of  the 
Church.  There  is  not  one  such  book  which  had 
more  than  a  local  and  temporary  acceptance  among 
the  books  regularly  used  in  worship.  But,  more- 
over, when  such  books  were  used,  they  could  not  be 
competitors  with  our  canonical  books.  All  of  them 
which  have  come  down  to  us  from  the  early  Church, 
not  only  make  no  such  claim,  but  they  disclaim  any 
right  to  a  place  of  authority,  and  testify  to  the  pre- 
eminence of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament. 
Some  critics  have  ignored  this  fact,  and  have  argued 
as  though  they  had  disposed  of  the  books  of  the 
New  Testament  when  they  have  shown  that  other 
books  were  read  in  the  congregations  of  primitive 
Christendom.  Now  it  is  quite  true  that  Clement's 
Epistle  was  publicl}^  read,  and  ^Barnabas'  and 
'  Hernias,'  and  that  all  of  them  are  found  in 
manuscripts  which  contain  the  books  of  our  New 
Testament.  Clement  is  found  in  the  great  Alex- 
andrian MS.  in  the  British  Museum  ;  Barnabas 
(complete)     and    Hernias    (partly)    in    the    great 

^  See  Cononicitij,  p,  237. 


104  CANON  IN  THE  EAIILY  CHURCH.        [Lect.  iv. 

Sinaitic  ms.  But  we  clo  not  admit  that  those  facts 
prove  the  early  copyists,  and  presumably  the  early 
Church,  to  have  given  them  a  place  as  high  as 
that  of  our  Canon.  We  do  not  deny  that  those 
books  were  so  read ;  nay,  we  found  on  such 
reading.  We  admit  that  the  books  had  liturgical 
authority ;  but  we  hold  it  to  be  impossible,  when 
their  own  contents  and  claims  are  considered,  that 
they  could  even  have  been  set  in  a  canonical 
position. 

Take  what  is  known  as  the  Epistle  of  Clement. 
It  is  probably  the  earliest  Christian  writing  outside 
of  the  New  Testament,  and  is  certainly  a  genuine 
product  of  the  first  century.  When  we  look  at  it, 
we  find  first  of  all  that  it  does  not  profess  to  come 
from  any  individual,  but  to  be  from  the  Church  in 
Rome  to  the  Church  in  Corinth.  Early  tradition 
connects  it  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt  with 
Clement  as  the  first  man  in  the  Roman  Church  at 
the  time,  and  consequently  the  writer  of  what  bears 
the  title  of  the  Church.  Still  it  is  to  be  observed, 
that  when  authority  is  claimed  for  statements  made, 
— when  a  distinct  assurance  of  speaking  the  truth 
regarding  doctrine  or  practice  is  found  in  it, — what 
might  have  been  assumption  on  the  part  of  an  in- 
dividual is  justifiable  in  the  case  of  a  whole  Church 
writing  to  counsel  and  warn  another  Church.  The 
Corinthian  Church  had  developed  the  spirit  of 
faction  against  which  St.  Paul  so  earnestly  wrote 


Lect.  IV.]  CLEMENT'S  EPISTLE.  105 

ill  his  First  Epistle.  Its  divisions  Lad  become  a 
scandal  to  all  Christendom,  and  observant  heathen 
(chap,  xlvii.)  blasphemed  the  name  of  the  Lord 
when  they  saw  the  strifes  and  jealousies.  The 
Roman  Church  therefore  warn  their  brethren  in 
Corinth  of  the  dangers  of  this  evil  state  of  things. 
They  speak  as  having,  like  them,  received  the 
gospel  from  holy  men  who  had  since  passed  away. 
For  the  authority  on  which  they  proceed  they  refer 
to  Paul's  Epistles  to  those  very  Corinthians.  '  Take 
up  the  Epistle  of  the  blessed  Paul  the  apostle. 
What  was  the  first  thing  he  wrote  to  you  in  the 
beginning  of  the  gospel  ?  Truly  he  wrote  to  you 
spiritually  concerning  himself  and  Cephas  and 
Apollos,  because  that  even  then  partisanships  had 
been  formed  among  you.  But  that  partisanship 
of  yours  brought  less  sin  upon  you,  because  you 
were  partisans  of  apostles  to  whom  all  men  have 
witnessed,  and  of  him  (Apollos)  w^hom  they 
honoured.  But  now  observe  w^ho  they  are  that 
have  drawn  you  into  factions  {pieaTpe-^av)  and 
have  lessened  the  renown  of  your  much-praised 
brotherly  love.  Disgraceful  things,  brethren,  ay, 
very  disgraceful  things,  and  unworthy  of  the 
followers  of  Christ,  are  heard  of  you  when  it  is 
told  us  that  the  very  strong  and  ancient  Church 
of  the  Corinthians  has  been  induced  by  two  or 
three  persons  to  rebel  against  the  presbyters. 
And   this   report   has   not    only  come  to   us,  but 


106  CANON  IN  THE  EARLY  CHURCH.        [Lect.  iv. 

also  unto  those  who  do  not  belong  to  us,  so  that 
blasphemies  are  brought  upon  the  name  of  the 
Lord  through  your  folly,  and  danger  is  incurred  by 
yourselves.  Let  us  therefore  remove  this  quickly 
out  of  the  way,  and  let  us  fall  down  before  the 
Master,  and  with  tears  entreat  Him  that  in  His 
mercy  He  become  reconciled  to  us  and  restore  us 
to  the  seemly  and  undefiled  observance  of  brotherly 
love'  (Clem.,  chaps,  xlvii.,  xlviii.). 

In  another  place  the  Roman  Church  rebuke  the 
Corinthians  for  having  removed  from  the  eldership 
some  elders  who  were  doing  their  duties  honourably 
and  well ;  but  the  rebuke  is  based  on  the  intention 
of  the  apostles  that  the  men  appointed  to  office 
should  not  lose  it  while  they  did  well.  ^  Our 
apostles  knew  through  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  that 
there  would  be  strife  about  the  overseership'  (chap, 
xliv.).  It  is  because  of  the  authority  of  the  apostles 
that  the  writers  of  the  Koman  letter  are  so  sure  of 
having  truth  and  the  mind  of  God  upon  their  side. 
Notwithstanding  one  or  two  ambiguous  passages,  I 
do  not  think  that  it  claims  authority  or  power.^ 

^  There  is  a  request  for  prayer  (chap.  Ivi.)  that  the  offenders  may 
yield  not  to  the  Romans  but  to  the  will  of  God.  And  again,  '  If  there 
be  some  that  disobey  the  things  spoken  by  Him  through  us,  let  them 
know  that  they  shall  involve  themselves  in  no  small  transgression  and 
peril'  (chap.  lix.).  One  more  passage,  which  admits  of  another  render- 
ing, seems  to  be  best  translated  thus :  '  Ye  shall  provide  for  us  joy  and 
rejoicing  if,  becoming  obedient  to  the  things  which  we  have  written, 
ye,  through  the  Holy  Spirit,  cut  off  the  unhallowed  wrath  of  your 
zeal  according  to  the  prayer  which  we  have  made  for  peace  and  like- 
mindedness  in  this  epistle'  (chap.  Ixiii.).  This  meaning  harmonizes  with 
the  Epistle  as  a  whole. 


Lect.  IV.]  POPULARITY  OF  CLEMENT.  107 

Throughout  the  Epistle  the  writer  shows  that  he 
is  expounding  a  rehgion  which  he,  and  those  who 
receive  it,  have  been  taught  through  authoritative 
channels.  He  never  uses  the  words  of  a  founder  of 
the  faith.  He  introduces,  with  a  prefatory  phrase, 
passages  which  we  have  in  our  Gospels,  as,  'Kemem- 
ber  the  words  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ'  (chaps. 
xiii.,  xlvi.).  With  a  claim  to  be  humble  followers  of 
the  apostles,  he  and  his  fellow-members  base  their 
faith  on  the  teaching  of  our  New  Testament  Epistles.^ 

We  have  dwelt  upon  this  letter  because  it  is  the 
most  remarkable  of  extra- canonical  Christian  books. 
It  was  regularly  read  in  the  meetings  of  the  Church 
of  Corinth  on  Sundays  (a.d.  170)  a  hundred  years 
after  it  was  written ;  and  we  read  that  the  Corin- 
thians were  about  to  do  the  same  with  another 
Koman  letter  received  at  this  later  date.  Nothing 
could  be  more  natural,  at  least  as  regards  Clement's 
letter  (Euseb.  //.  E.  iv.  23).  No  sermon  of  a  local 
preacher  w^as  likely  to  be  more  edifying  than  that 
ancient  letter,  so  full  of  wisdom  and  love.  This 
local  partiality  quite  accounts  in  such  a  case — and 
such  cases  must  have  been  many — for  an  Epistle 
being  read  in  a  particular  Church  though  it  did 
not  receive  and  did  not  claim  canonical  position  or 
apostolic  authority.  There  is  no  trace  of  canonical 
authority  having  been  granted  to  this,  the  earliest 
and  best  of  the  writings  of  the  apostolic  fathers. 

1  See  Tgn.  ad  Phllad.  chap.  vii.  for  similar  claim. 


108  CANON  IN  THE  EARLY  CHURCH.        [Lect.  iv. 

It  was  read  in  Corinth.  But  the  mere  fact  that 
another  letter  written  and  received  in  the  end  of 
the  second  century  was  read  in  Corinth  along  with 
it,  shows  that  the  public  reading  of  it  did  not 
imply  its  being  regarded  as  Scripture.  It  was  a 
valuable  letter,  and  was  frequently  read  elsewhere 
than  in  Corinth.  It  was  so  much  liked  that  it  was 
eventually  written  out  and  appended  to  the  New 
Testament.  We  find  it  in  mss.  ;  we  find  it  in  lists 
of  New  Testament  books.  We  are  speaking  of  a 
later  date,  however.  In  the  earliest  days  of  the 
Church  it  was  not  so.  It  was  never  counted  a 
competitor  with  our  canonical  books  for  general 
recognition  ;  and  when  it  did  find  a  place  in  a  kind 
of  appendix  to  the  New  Testament,  there  was  found 
along  with  it  a  homily  by  an  unknown  author, — 
the  earliest  extant  Christian  sermon  by  an  unin- 
spired man, — curiously  termed  the  '  Second  Epistle 
of  Clement,'  but  of  no  canonical  worth.  We  con- 
clude, as  regards  '  Clement's  Epistle,'  that  it  does 
not  really  claim  inspiration  or  authority,  but  that 
the  fact  of  there  being  two  ambiguous  phrases  in 
it  which  possibly  were  interpreted  as  making  such 
a  claim,  may  have  helped  it  to  find  general  accept- 
ance throughout  the  Church. 

The  so-called  'Second  Epistle  of  Clement' 
is  of  doubtful  age  and  authorship.  It  has  only 
been  found  of  late  in  a  complete  form;  and 
now  that  it  is  all  in  our  hands,  we  see  that  it  is 


Lect.  IV.]  SECOND  CLEMENT.  109 

a  sermon  or  homily  addressed  to  a  Christian  con- 
gregation. There  is  no  reason  to  connect  it  with 
Clement,  though,  upon  the  whole,  it  may  be 
regarded  as  a  sermon  preached  in  Corinth,  and  in 
this  way  locally  associated  with  Clement's  Epistle, 
so  as  to  be  like  it  habitually  read,  along  with  the 
New  Testament,  in  ordinary  services  of  worship. 
It  is  singularly  interesting  as  a  specimen  of 
Christian  preaching,  as  the  oldest  uninspired 
Christian  sermon  now  extant.  We  learn  from  it 
of  what  sort  some  of  the  earliest  preaching  was. 
We  see  little  teaching  of  wdiat  we  call  doctrine, 
— the  relation  of  the  different  parts  of  Christian 
truth  to  each  other,  -r-  but  there  is,  neverthe- 
less, a  strong  hold  of  the  essential  verities 
of  the  faith,  and  an  unsparing  assault  on  the 
prevalent  error  of  the  times,  which,  starting  from 
the  Gnostic  tenet  of  the  essential  sinfulness  of 
matter,  went  on  to  deny  the  resurrection  of  the 
body,  and  to  minimize  the  sinfulness  of  fleshly 
lusts.  The  preacher  eloquently  and  affectionately 
urges  his  hearers  to  consider  the  greatness  of  the 
present  life,  on  the  ground  that  in  it  Christ's  sal- 
vation must  be  accomplished  in  every  one  of  us. 
He  makes  no  claim  of  inspiration  or  of  authority 
for  himself;  he  calls  the  Scriptures  the  Word 
of  the  '  God  of  Truth ;'  and  though  he  quotes 
apocryphal  books,  both  of  the  Old  Testament 
and   of  the   New,   there   is   nothinof   to  make    us 


110  CANON  IN  THE  EARLY  CHURCH.       [Lect.  iv. 

regard  him  as  more  than  a  powerful  and,  on  the 
whole,  a  useful  preacher  of  those  Christian  truths 
which  he  himself  calls  the  'oracles  of  God.' 

Still  more  clear  is  the  absence  of*  canonical  claim 
or  canonical  recognition  in  the  case  of  '  Barnabas.' 
The  Epistle  which  bears  the  name  of  Paul's 
comrade  cannot  be  accepted  as  his,  because  of  the 
w^riter's  amazing  ignorance  of  the  things  of  Israel, 
and  because  of  his  exaggerated  statements  as  to  the 
abandoned  sinfulness  of  the  apostles  before  they 
were  'called.'  It  seems  to  have  been  written  about 
A.D.  120,  its  clear  dependence  on  John's  Gospel 
preventing  our  giving  it  the  earlier  date  of  a.d.  71 
or  A.D.  72,  which  some  scholars  have  favoured.  It 
w^as  much  thought  of  during  the  third  century, 
both  Clement  of  Alexandria  and  Origen  treating  it 
with  marked  respect.  Clement  calls  it  'apostolic,' 
and  Origen  calls  it  '  catholic'  Yet  neither  of  them 
can  be  justly  charged  with  including  it  in  the  New 
Testament.  And  no  one  else  went  so  near  to  that 
as  they  did.  Does  the  writer,  then,  claim  to  have 
a  place  in  the  world  of  letters  beside  the  great 
Apostle  of  the  Gentiles  ?  On  the  contrary,  the 
whole  tone  of  the  Epistle  is  that  of  a  man  of  little 
knowledge,  and  unduly  proud  of  that  little,  but 
never  speaking  as  though  he  were  an  authority. 
Not  only  this,  but  he  is  the  first  outside  of  the 
Canon  to  refer  to  the  New  Testament  as  to  a 
written  and  authoritative  record.     'It  is  written, 


Lect.  IV.]  BARNABAS  AND  HERMAS.  Ill 

Many  are  called,  but  few  chosen'  (chap.  iv.).  This 
is  not  an  accidental  expression.  It  occurs  in  a 
long  passage  making  use  of  St.  Matthew's  Gospel, 
and  it  is  a  distinct  reference  to  the  New  Testament, 
with  the  same  kind  of  deference  as  was  usually 
paid  to  the  Old.  The  writer  was  not  indebted  to 
Matthew  alone.  His  thought  and  his  theology 
clearly  prove  that  he  had  drunk  deeply  at  the 
sources  in  the  Gospel  and  Epistles  of  John.  The 
teaching  of  Peter  and  Paul  and  James  may  also 
be  traced  in  the  Epistle  (chap.  viii.).  There  is 
only  one  quotation  from  an  Old  Testament 
apocryphal  book.  Here,  then,  we  have  a  book  in 
high  esteem,  which  not  only  does  not  claim  to  be 
Scripture,  but  quotes  the  gospel  as  Scripture. 

The  next  of  the  Avri tings  of  apostolic  fathers 
found  along  with  New  Testament  books  in  the 
esteem  of  some  authors  and  in  some  mss.,  is  the 
'  Shepherd  '  of  Hermas,  a  curious,  mystical  book, 
dating  from  about  the  year  a.d.  142.  Of  the  per- 
sonality of  the  author,  save  that  he  had  a  brother 
Pius  who  was  Bishop  of  Pome,  we  know  absolutely 
nothing.  Whether  he  was  old  or  young  when  the 
second  century  began,  whether  he  had  ever  seen 
the  city  and  the  temple  in  which  walked  Christ's 
blessed  feet,  we  cannot  tell,  though  all  the  indications 
of  the  work  itself  point  to  a  later  date.  It  is  easier 
to  learn  the  history  of  John  Bunyan  from  the 
Pilgrims  Progress,  than  to  guess  at  the  experiences 


112  CANON  IN  THE  EATILY  CHCRCH.        [Lect.  iv. 

of  Hermas  from  his  book.  But  this  much  we  can 
say,  that  he  nowhere  claims  any  right  to  be  regarded 
as  an  inspired  teacher,  though  the  j)artiaHty  of  some 
of  the  later  Christian  writers  magnified  his  position 
so  as  to  credit  him  with  inspiration.  Clement  of 
Alexandria  ascribes  a  divine  origin  to  the  words  of 
Hermas,  and  often  quotes  him.  Origen  says  that  he 
was  divinely  inspired,  and  the  generous  eclecticism 
of  those  two  great  Alexandrian  teachers  led  them 
to  acknowledge  the  divine  gift  in  all  good  things 
said  by'  good  men  ;  but  be  it  observed  that  neither 
of  them  gave  the  book  a  place  in  Holy  Scripture. 
The  wide  admission  of  inspiration  is  one  thing,  the 
recognition  of  authoritative  Scripture  is  another 
and  very  different  thing.  An  early  document, 
called  the  Muratorian  Fragment,  written  soon  after 
the  work  of  Hermas,  says  the  '  Shepherd '  must 
never  to  the  end  of  time  be  reckoned  with  prophets 
or  apostles,  or  be  publicly  read  to  the  people  in  the 
Church.  The  writer's  own  claim  is,  that  he  en- 
forces the  moral  precepts  of  the  gospel  on  those 
who  accepted  its  facts  and  doctrines.  The  book  is 
an  attempt  to  persuade  Christians,  by  allegory  and 
similitude,  to  walk  worthy  of  the  vocation  where- 
with they  had  been  called. 

There  is  one  other  early  writer — Polycarp — 
earlier  than  the  so  -  called  Barnabas,  almost  as 
early  as  Clement,  who  was  the  pupil  of  the 
apostles,  and  who   had   the    special    distinction    of 


Lect.  IV.]  POLYCARP.  113 

being  the  beloved  disciple  of  the  beloved  Apostle 
John.  He  lived  to  a  great  old  age,  though  he 
died  in  the  end  a  martyr's  death.  His  short 
letter,  whose  o^enuineness  has  not  been  success- 
fully  impugned,  is  as  rich  in  quotation  and 
reference,  as  full  of  the  spirit  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, as  though  it  were  the  work  of  Archbishop 
Leighton.  Peter  and  Paul  and  John — we  find  him 
speak  in  the  words  and  thoughts  of  all  those  great 
apostles.  We  find  him  teaching  what  he  had  been 
taught ;  but  instead  of  asserting  for  himself  any 
right  to  stand  on  the  same  platform  with  those 
pillars  of  the  Church,  he  explicitly  defines  his 
position  to  be  that  of  a  humble  and  unworthy 
follower.  He  is  writing  to  the  Philippians  at  their 
.request,  and  he  says  :  ^  Do  we  not  know  that  the 
saints  shall  judge  the  world,  as  Paul  teaches  ?  But 
I  have  neither  seen  nor  heard  of  any  such  thing 
among  you,  in  the  midst  of  whom  the  blessed  Paul 
laboured,  and  who  are  such  as  he  commends  in  the 
beginning  of  his  Epistle.  For  he  boasts  of  you  in 
all  those  churches  which  alone  then  had  known  the 
Lord,  but  we  [of  Smyrna]  had  not  yet  known  Him.' 
Nor  is  this  all.  The  aged  saint  was  in  real 
alarm  lest  men  should  over-estimate  him  because  in 
his  youth  he  had  sat  at  the  feet  of  John,  and  was  in 
the  habit  of  recounting  anecdotes  of  the  later  years 
of  the  disciple  who  had  lain  on  the  Saviour's  breast.^ 

1  See  Iienseus'  Letter  to  Florinus :  Stieren's  Irenasus^  i.  823, 
H 


114  CANON  IN  THE  EARLY  CHURCH.         [Lect.  iv!  . 

For  this  end  he  elaborately  discredits  himself,  that 
he  may  refer  the  men  of  Philippi  to  the  apostle 
whom  the  Spirit  sent  *  over  to  help '  them  in  the 
beginning  of  the  gospel. 

Nor  is  even  this  all.  As  I  have  remarked  else- 
where/ the  whole  Epistle  is  an  exposition  of 
documents  accepted  as  standard  and  authorita- 
tive. The  word  Canon  was  not  yet  in  use  with 
its  present  meaning  ;  but  the  whole  attitude  of 
Polycarp  is  that  of  one  who  was  interpreting 
accepted  Scriptures.  '  It  is  not  Polycarp  as  a 
man  who  speaks,  but  a  fellow-sinner  and  fellow- 
Christian,  who  has  no  right  nor  title  to  address 
them,  save  in  so  far  as  God  gives  him  grace  to 
remind  them  of  the  revealed  word,  which  in  his 
own  experience  he  has  found  to  be  true  and 
precious  beyond  all  price.'  This  Epistle,  then,  is 
no  competitor  for  a  canonical  place,  but  it  is  a 
valuable  testimony  to  our  Canon. 

'These  things,  brethren,  I  write  unto  you  con- 
cerning righteousness,  not  because  I  take  anything 
upon  myself,  but  because  you  have  invited  me  to 
do  so. 

'For  neither  I  nor  any  one.  else  like  me  can  come  up 
to  the  wisdom  of  the  blessed  and  glorified  Paul.  He, 
when  among  you,  accurately  and  stedfastly  tauglit 
the  word  of  truth  in  the  presence  of  those  who  were 
then  alive.     And  when  absent  from  you,  he  wrote 

^  Canonicity,  p.  39. 


Lect.  IV.]  IGNATIUS.  115 

you  a  letter  which,  if  you  carefully  study,  you  will 
find  to  be  the  means  of  building  you  up  in  that 
faith  which  has  been  given  you,  and  which,  being 
followed  by  hope,  and  preceded  by  love  towards 
God  and  Christ,  and  our  neighbours,  is  the  mother 
of  us  all.  For  if  any  one  be  inwardly  possessed  of 
those  graces,  he  hath  fulfilled  the  command  of 
righteousness,  since  he  that  hath  love  is  far  from 
all  sin.' 

^  Ignatius'  is  another  of  the  apostolic  fathers 
whom  it  is  usual  to  cite.  If  the  Epistles  were 
really  those  of  Ignatius,  there  could  be  nothing 
more  interesting.  The  saint  of  Antioch  is  being 
carried  to  Home  to  be  the  prey  of  the  lions ;  and 
while  he  is  thus  dragged  across  the  Asiatic  con- 
tinent to  be  butchered  in  Rome's  bloody  holiday, 
he  addresses  letters  from  various  halting-places  to 
churches  and  individuals  that  were  near  his  heart. 
Fifteen  letters  run  in  his  name  :  some  think  only 
seven  of  them  are  genuine,  either  in  the  shorter  or 
in  the  longer  form  (for  we  have  a  choice)  ;  some 
insist  upon  the  genuineness  of  only  three.  If  any 
of  the  forms  of  those  letters  were  genuine,  we 
should  have  New  Testament  quotations  enough 
for  many  purposes.  We  could  prove  the  existence 
of  the  New  Testament,  the  supreme  power  of  the 
Episcopal  hierarchy,  the  High  Church  sacramental 
theories,  and  other  things  besides.  But  when  we 
could  prove  so  much,  we  distrust  the  proof     We 


116  CANON  IN  THE  EARLY  CHURCH.         [Lect.  iv. 

neither  doubt  the  story  of  Ignatius,  nor  the  fact 
that  his  real  letters  were  the  kernel  of  what 
bears  his  name  ;  but  they  have  been  so  altered 
and  interpolated,  especially  as  regards  quotations 
from  the  New  Testament,  and  their  original 
form  seems  so  utterly  irrecoverable,  that  we 
cannot  found  anything  upon  any  specific  expression 
contained  in  them.  Those  letters,  therefore,  lie 
outside  of  our  argument.  If  they  were  accepted, 
they  would  prove  that  at  the  time  of  Ignatius,  dis- 
putants in  the  Christian  Church  appealed  to  written 
standards  (ad  Philad.  viii.) ;  nay,  it  might  appear 
that  one  part  of  the  New  Testament  was  known  as 
'the  Gospel,'  and  another  as  the  testimony  of  the 
'  apostles'  {Ibid,  i.  5).  At  all  events,  it  would  be 
clear  beyond  a  doubt  that  the  writer  bent  not  only 
with  reverence  but  with  superstitious  fear  before  the 
writers  and  the  rulers  of  the  Church  which  Christ 
had  founded.^  I  am  aware  that,  in  declining  to 
accept  his  testimony,  I  am  turning  away  from  one 
who  would  be  a  powerful  witness.  But  in  the 
search  for  truth  we  can  have  no  help  save  from 
what  is  true. 

One  other  testimony  of  quite  a  different  kind 
comes  to  us  from  those  early  days.  Its  author  is  no 
preacher  like  Clement,  no  amplifier  of  the  theology 
of  Paul  like  Polycarp,  but  a  caterer  of  traditions,  a 

1  Ign.  ad.  Philad.  chap,  viii.,  claims  for  the  writer  God's  guiding 
grace ;  but  any  Christian  may  claim  that  God  keeps  him  from  being 
deceived  by  those  v/hose  arguments  are  '  according  to  the  flesh.' 


Lect.  IV.]  PAPIAS.  117 

man  who  went  about,  note-book  in  hand,  to  pick  up 
Avhat  fell  from  those  who  had  seen  the  apostles  and 
immediate  disciples  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  This  busy 
taker  of  notes,  Papias,  bishop  of  Hierapolis,  wrote 
five  books  of  'Exposition  of  the  Oracles  of  the  Lord.' 
They  have  perished,  save  a  few  scraps,  which  are 
embalmed  in  quotations  of  a  later  time.  He  seems 
to  have  collected  what  appeared  to  him  to  be  the 
most  important  sayings  and  doings  of  Christ,  and  to 
have  appended  to  each  of  them  a  commentary,  some- 
times enforcing  the  moral  of  the  divine  precept, 
sometimes  furnishing  an  illustration  of  the  truth 
from  the  experiences  and  the  statements  of  the 
worthies  of  the  earlier  time.  Papias  lived  from 
about  A.D.  70  to  A.D.  150,  and  long  laboured  at  his 
vocation.  Some  of  the  apostles  he  seems  to  have 
met.  John  was  his  teacher  and  Polycarp  his 
comrade,  the  daughters  of  Philip  were  his  con- 
temporaries, and  in  his  own  maturer  years  he  was 
the  associate  of  many  who  had  met  more  of  the 
founders  of  the  Church  than  it  had  been  his  own 
lot  to  meet.  Altogether  he  was  an  authority 
on  what  had  taken  place,  or  had  been  believed,  in 
Asia  Minor. 

And  what,  then,  says  Papias  ?  Does  he  set  up 
his  book  as  a  rival  or  an  equal  of  the  Gospels,  to 
the  existence  of  which  he  testifies  ?  On  the  con- 
trary, few  as  are  the  fragments  of  his  work  which 
have  come  down  to  us,  it  is  evident  from  them  that 


118  CAXON  IN  THE  EARLY  CHURCH.         [Lect.  iv. 

he  fulfilled  his  function  when  he  preserved  traditions 
about  the  authoritative  books  of  the  New  Testamenl^ 
He  says  that  Mark  compiled  his  Gospel  from  his 
notes  of  the  preaching  of  Peter,  whose  companion 
he  was."^  It  has  in  Papias'  eyes  all  the  authority 
due  to  a  faithful  transcript  of  the  teaching  of  Peter. 
He  tells  us  also  that  Matthew  wrote  his  account  of 
the  divine  oracles  in  Hebrew,  and  that  there  was 
at  first  no  authorized  translation  from  the  Hebrew. 
Like  one  who  accompanies  pilgrims  through  a  fair 
land,  and  who  stops  at  each  monument  or  striking 
feature  of  the  landscape,  confirming  by  his  appro- 
priate lore  the  impression  which  those  well-known 
features  make  on  the  observant  mind,  Papias 
entertains  those  who,  like  himself,  reverenced  the 
Gospels  and  honoured  the  departed  apostles,  with 
his  reminiscences  of  the  books  and  the  men  that 
were  the  landmarks  of  the  new  Christian  life.  He 
says  :  '  I  shall  not  refuse  to  arrange  for  you  along 
with  my  interpretations  [of  Scripture]  those  things 
also  which  in  former  days  I  well  learned  from  the 
elders  and  well  recorded,  being  myself  well  assured 
of  the  truth  concerning  them.  For  I  was  not  like 
most  people,  prone  to  find  my  chief  pleasure  in  those 
who  furnished  ordinary  conversation,  but  I  found 
my  delight  in  those  who  were  teaching  the  things 
that  are  true ;  nor  did  I  attach  myself  to  those  who 

1  This  ancient  testimony  is  confirmed  or  repeated  by  many  later 
writers.  (See  Moesinger's  edition  of  Ephrem's  Com.  on  Tatian's  Dia- 
tessaron.     Epbrem  adds  that  Maik  was  written  in  Latin.) 


Lect.  IV.]  PAPIAS  ON  BOOKS.  119 

recorded  the  precepts  of  people  with  whom  we  have 
no  concern,  but  to  those  who  told  of  the  precepts 
which  were  given  by  the  Lord  for  the  nourishment 
of  faith,  and  who  came  to  us  after  being  near  to 
the  Truth  Himself.  So,  then,  when  any  one  came 
who  had  been  an  associate  of  the  elders,  I  inquired 
at  him  about  the  elders'  words, — what  Andrew  or 
what  Peter  said,  or  what  Philip  said,  or  Thomas,  or 
James,  or  John,  or  Matthew,  or  any  other  of  the 
disciples  of  the  Lord,  or  what  Aristion  and  the 
Presbyter  John,  the  disciples  of  the  Lord,  are 
saying  in  our  own  time.  For  I  was  not  in  the 
way  of  supposing  that  I  was  so  much  indebted  to 
things  out  of  books  as  to  those  which  came  from 
the  living  and  abiding  voice.' 

There  is  some  ambiguity  in  those  last  words, 
disparaging  books,  if  they  are  taken  by  themselves  ; 
but  when  read  along  with  the  context,  they  mean 
that  for  his  purpose  of  traditional  illustration,  the 
chief  source  of  information  was  the  conversation  of 
men  who  had  seen  the  Lord  and  those  who  once 
were  His  companions.  He  lived  in  a  time  of  much 
speaking  ;  he  lived  in  a  commercial  district,  where 
many  men  had  much  to  say  of  what  they  had  seen ; 
and  around  him  were  in  circulation  books  of  every 
kind,  books  of  philosophy,  or  of  philosophic  com- 
mentary on  the  New  Testament  Scriptures  ;  but 
with  a  sly  hit  at  their  wordiness,  he  turned  away 
from  all  those  to  pursue  his  own  definite  purpose. 


120  CANOX  IN  THE  EARLY  CHURCH.        [Lect.  iv. 

There  is  no  small  probability  that  in  this  last 
part  of  the  account  of  his  work  Papias  was  refer- 
ring to  the  wordy  works  of  his  Gnostic  contem- 
poraries, whose  systems  were  plentiful,  copious,  and 
shortlived  as  mushrooms.  A  Syrian  contemporary 
of  his,  Basilides  by  name,  wrote  no  fewer  than 
twenty-four  books  upon  the  gospel,  of  the  nature 
of  which  a  learned  man  like  Papias — for  Eusebius, 
who  loved  him  little,  tells  us  that  he  was  a  man 
of  much  lore — must  have  been  well  aware.  Taken 
in  this  sense,  his  words  mean  that  he  found  it  more 
profitable  to  listen  to  those  who  had  some  actual 
fact  to  tell,  than  to  those  who  wrote  long-winded 
speculations  upon  the  doctrine  of  Christ. 

This,  at  least,  is  abundantly  certain,  that  Papias 
never  dreamed  of  his  chronicles  and  memorials 
and  illustrations  being  set  up  alongside  the  works 
of  the  apostles  and  of  those  whom  they  guided  in 
writing.  His  work  was  no  rival  of  the  canonical 
books. 

The  reference  of  Papias  to  the  wordiness  of  his 
contemporaries  leads  us  to  turn  to  the  Gnostics, 
who,  as  we  have  just  said,  were  the  most 
voluminous  authors  of  his  day.  Their  position 
was  one  of  antagonism  to  the  ordinary  teaching 
of  the  Church.  The  testimonies  we  have  hitherto 
considered  belong  to  the  orthodox  Church  ;  and 
it  might  be  supposed  that  some  rivals  to  the 
ordinary  standards  of  doctrine  in  the  Church  would 


Lect.  IV.]  THE  GNOSTICS.  121 

emerge  in  the  great  Gnostic  systems  of  the  first 
and  second  centuries.     Yet  it  is  not  so. 

For  those  Gnostics  were  men  who  claimed  to 
have  knowledge,  and  who  sought  it  through  human 
philosophy,  but  yet  did  not  give  up  their  adherence 
to  the  simple  verities  of  Christianity.  The  staple 
of  the  teaching  in  the  Ep.  -  Apostolic  Church, 
as  we  may  infer  from  the  homily  known  as 
Clement's  '  Second  Epistle,'  was  not  doctrine,  but 
an  outline  of  the  facts  of  the  life  of  Jesus,  and  an 
enforcement  of  the  great  ethical  lessons  of  purity 
and  peace  which  could  be  deduced  from  these  facts. 
But  such  plain  facts  did  not  suit  the  Greeks,  who 
^sought  after  wisdom,'  or  the  Orientals,  whose 
giants  of  thought  had  long  speculated  on  the 
origin  of  good  and  evil,  of  mind  and  matter.  In 
the  great  towns  of  Greece  and  Asia  Minor,  above 
all  in  Alexandria,  where  Judaism  and  heathen 
philosophy  had  long  been  blended,  philosophers 
who  became  Christians  were  under  some  constraint 
to  combine  the  gospel  with  their  philosophy.  And 
to  them,  therefore,  doctrine  was  everything.  They 
were  well  aware  that  their  doctrine  was  not  like 
that  which  prevailed  in  the  Church.  They  were 
proud  of  having  passed  beyond  the  limits  of  '  faith, 
as  ordinarily  understood,  and  of  expatiating  in  the 
wide  field  of  '  knowledge.'  They  were  not  content 
to  have  their  horizon  in  the  life  of  Jesus  or  in  the 
mountains  of  Israel ;  they  still  had  an  Evangelic 


122  CANON  IN  THE  EARLY  CHURCH.         [Lect.  iv. 

Record  for  their  centre  ;  but  for  the  origin  of  all 
things  they  went  back  to  the  primeval  thought  of 
God,  and  for  the  end  of  all  they  looked  to  the  fulfil- 
ment of  the  promise  that  evil  should  be  led  into 
captivity  by  Christ,  and  all  things  in  heaven  and 
earth  be  reconciled  to  God  in  Him. 

The  remarkable  result  of  all  this  was  that,  instead 
of  decrying  the  sacred  writings,  they  magnified 
them.  It  was  their  aim  to  proceed  from  the 
starting-point  of  the  revelation  which  they  found  in 
the  New  Testament,  and  to  advance  to  what  they 
believed  to  be  the  highest  attainments  of  Christian 
philosophy.  Their  writings  often  obscured  the 
truth ;  but  they  possessed  it,  and  I  have  no  doubt 
honestly  strove  to  expound  it,  and  to  make  it  the 
core  of  their  speculations.  They  tortured,  twisted, 
and  diluted  it,  until  its  spirit  was  quite  gone,  but 
all  the  more  on  that  account  did  they  magnify  the 
value  of  its  'letter.'  What  books  they  actually 
manufactured — many  of  them  known  as  the  New 
Testament  Apocrypha — were  avowedly  supplemen- 
tary to  our  Gospels.  Not  even  one  of  them  could 
be  a  substitute.  The  Apocryphal  Gospels  take  up 
portions  of  the  life  of  Jesus  which  our  four  Evan- 
gelists have  left  untold,  or  they  enforce  some 
subordinate  doctrine  for  which  the  New  Testament 
gives  no  authority.  The  oldest  and  best  of  the 
Apocryphal  Gospels,  known  as  the  Gospel  of  James, 
tells  of  the  parentage  of  the  mother  of  Jesus  and 


Lect.  IV.]  GNOSTIC  WRITINGS.  123 

her  perpetual  dignity;  another  —  the  Gospel  of 
Thomas — tells  marvellous  stories  of  the  Redeemer  s 
childhood ;  another,  which  is  known  as  part  of  the 
Gospel  of  Nicodemus,  is  an  account  of  Christ's 
doings  in  the  under  world  while  His  body  was  in 
Joseph's  tomb.  The  Apocryphal  'Acts'  are  each 
designed  to  solve  some  knotty  question  of  doctrine 
or  of  church  government.  But  all  of  them  suppose 
the  existence  of  canonical  books,  of  which  they  are 
echoes,  expansions,  satellites.  And  they  are  all 
indirect  but  distinct  confirmations  of  the  tradition 
of  the  Church  regarding  the  early  origin  and 
authority  of  the  canonical  books. 

But  it  behoved  the  Gnostics  to  commend  their 
systems  of  philosophy  by  showing  how  they  could 
be  reconciled  with  the  words  of  Scripture.  And  the 
first  Canon  of  New  Testament  Scripture  was  com- 
piled by  a  Gnostic — Marcion  ;  the  first  commentary 
on  the  words  of  any  part  of  Scripture  was  written 
by  a  Gnostic — ITeracleon;  and  the  oldest  professed 
homilies  or  commentaries  on  the  doctrines  of  the 
gospel  were  written  by  another  and  earlier  Gnostic 
— Basilides.  In  the  Christian  Church,  yet  scarcely 
of  it,  those  early  philosophers  are  valuable  wit- 
nesses to  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  ;  for 
they  set  up  no  avowed  rivals,  they  wished  only 
to  expound  or  to  commend  the  accepted  books. 

The  Christian  congregations  in  those  days  had 
no  minute  systems  of  doctrine ;  the  broad  outlines 


124  CANON  IN  THE  EARLY  CHURCH.        [Lect.  iv. 

of  truth  and  duty  sufficed  for  them ;  and  in  many 
cases  the  exact  words  of  Scripture  were  of  small 
account.  Just  because  thev  followed  the  true 
tradition  of  true  doctrine,  they  were  often  not 
learned  in  the  letter.  And  just  because  the 
Gnostics  left  that  tradition,  they  had  to  plead 
the  letter  as  their  warrant.  It  was  therefore- 
they — and  not  the  orthodox — that  first  established 
the  principles  of  canonicity. 

We  shall  see  this  if  we  look  at  typical  Gnostic 
work  in  the  regions  of  philosophy,  criticism^  and 
imagination. 

Basilides  is  the  philosopher  whom  we  take  as 
an  example  of  the  way  in  w^hich  Gnostics  niade 
it  their  business  to  weave  Scripture  words  into 
the  terminology  of  their  systems. 

We  have  already  spoken  of  him  as  the  author 
of  a  voluminous  work  on  the  gospel.  He 
flourished  as  an  influential  teacher  about  a.d.  125 
in  Egypt,  Syria,  and  perhaps  Persia.  He  had 
meditated  on  John's  teaching,  that  all  things  were 
made  by  the  Logos ;  he  had  longed  for  the 
realizing  of  Paul's  teaching,  that  the  universe  is 
reconciled  to  God  in  Jesus  Christ ;  and  we  find 
him  quoting  our  Gospels,  and  labouring  to  show 
how  the  groaning  creation  shall  one  day  be  set 
free,  and  how  the  true  Light  will  lighten  every 
man  that  cometh  into  the  world.  But  in  strange 
contrast   with    this    noble    aim    seems    to    be    his 


Lect.  IV.]  A  GNOSTIC  PHILOSOPHER.  125 

system,  at  all  events  when  its  skeleton  or  abstract 
is  set   before  us.      From  the   supreme  God  came 
forth   in   the    primeval    eternity  the   germ   of  all 
things,    an    egg,    in    which,    if    we    may    use    a 
modern   phrase,    was    ^  the    promise    and    potency 
of  all   life  ; '    and  out   of  this    egg,   in   necessary 
development,   grew  the   principalities   and  powers 
which  Jesus  the  Archon's  Son  is  to  enlisfhten  as 
Saviour     and    Light.       Anxiously    did    Basilides 
quote     John's     prologue,    and     weave    in     words 
from    Colossians    and   Ephesians.       Thus    did    he 
profess   to    set   greater    store   on   New  Testament 
writings  than  those  whose  simple  life  of  faith  was 
moulded  by  them.       But   this   was  not  even  all. 
He  tried  to  lay  hold  of  the  current  reverence  for 
oral  tradition  in  the  Church;  he  claimed  to  have 
had  the  benefit  of  the  oral  teaching  of  a  certain 
Glaucias,  who  had  been  Peter's  pupil,  and  to  have 
the  true  doctrine  of  Matthias,  whom  Jesus  Himself 
instructed.       In    answer   to    every   assault    on   his 
system  as  being  contrary  to  the  words   of  sound 
doctrine  on  which  men  had  grown  up,  he  would 
quote  some  text  of  the  New  Testament  that  could 
be  forced  to   support  him.      Thus  was   Basilides, 
though  a  perverter  of  the  gospel,  a  maintainer  of 
the  writings  of  the  founders  of  the  Church. 

His  testimony  is  especially  important  in  the 
evidence  for  the  early  date  and  apostolic  author- 
ship of  John's  Gospel.     In  the  recently  discovered 


126  CANON  IN  THE  EARLY  CHURCH.        [Lect.  iv. 

treatise,  which  is  commonly  accepted  as  the 
'  Refutation  of  all  Heresies  '  by  Hippolytus,  and 
as  dating  about  a.d.  220,  is  an  account  of  Basilides 
and  his  followers.  In  course  of  this  account  there 
occur  two  remarkable  passages  with  quotations 
from  John's  Gospel.  We  may  here  quote  them, 
as  showing  how  this 'ancient  Gnostic  laboured  at 
his  task  of  constructing  a  Christian  cosmogony  : — 

'  But  since  it  was  incompetent  to  say  that  any  projection  of  a 
non-existent  God  became  a  non-existent  something, — for  Basilides 
altogether  shuns  and  dreads  existences  beginning  in  projection, 
—  for  what  kind  of  emanation  would  thus  be  needed,  or  what 
material  must  be  posited,  that  God  might  make  the  world 
as  a  spider   makes   his  threads,  or  as  some  mortal   man   takes 

brass,    or   wood,    or    some   other   material    for   his   craft  ? 

.  .  .  From  things  non-existent,  he  says,  came  into  being  the 
seed  of  the  world,  viz.  the  word  which  was  spoken :  "  Let  there 
be  hght;"  and  this,  he  says,  is  that  which  is  said  in  the  Gospels  : 
''  That  was  the  true  Light,  which  lighteth  every  man  on  his 
coming  into  the  world.'"  ^ 

That  those  words  refer  to  John's  Gospel  no  one 
can  deny.  But  some  deny  that  Basilides  wrote 
them.  Yet  are  they  at  the  heart  of  the  Basilidian 
system ;  and  what  Basilidian  would  have  been  in 
Hippolytus'  eye  save  the  founder  of  the  system 
himself?  Isidore,  his  son,  is  out  of  the  question. 
He  did  not  quote  Scripture  in  that  way,  so  far  as 
we  know.  And  we  hold  them  for  the  words  of 
Basilides,  the  more   so  that  Basilides  is  specially 

1  Hippol.  Ref.  Hmr,  vii.  22,  p.  360  (Duucker  and  Schneidewin's 
edition).     See  Canonicity,  p.  173. 


Lect.  iy.]  a  gnostic  CRITIC.  12? 

named  in  the   immediately  preceding   words,   and 
is  known  to  have  accepted  our  Gospels. 

There  is  another  passage  which  shows  the 
acquaintance  of  the  philosopher  with  our  Gospels  : 

'  And,  says  he,  that  each  one  has  his  special  times  the  Saviour 
Himself  is  a  competent  witness  when  He  says:  "My  time  is  not 
yet  come."  And  the  Magi  who  gazed  at  [His]  star  are  wit- 
nesses [that  there  is  a  fixed  hour]  :  For,  says  he,  He  Himself 
[i.e.  Jesus]  was  appointed  beforehand  at  the  time  of  the  birth  of 
stars,  and  of  the  times  of  restitution  in  the  great  universe.'  ^ 

We  now  turn  to  the  critical  Gnostic. 

Marcion,  the  representative  of  Gnostic  criticism, 
came  some  ten  years  after  Basilides  ;  and  from 
A.D.  135  his  views  were  widely  spread  in  Rome 
and  Syria.  He  was  from  Pontus,  on  the  shores 
of  the  Black  Sea.  Basilides  had  been  content  to 
accept  the  gospel  narrative  substantially  as  it 
stood  (Hippol.  Eef.  Hcer.  iii.  27;  see  Can.  p.  49), 
and  to  found  his  system  upon  a  philosophy  which 
transmuted  Scriptural  simplicity  into  Gnostic 
speculation ;  but  Marcion  undertook  a  harder  task. 
Like  most  Gnostics,  he  believed  that  matter  is 
essentially  evil;  that  the  God  of  the  Old  Testament 
is  the  Creator  of  matter  or  the  representative  of  its 
evil  power ;  and  that  Jesus  Christ  came  to  establish 
a  new  dispensation  in  entire  antagonism  to  the 
system  of  the  Old  Testament. 

Starting  with  an  exaggerated  view  of  St.  Paul's 

^  Hippol.  vii.  27 ;  Canonicity^  p.  173. 


128  CANON  IN  THE  EARLY  CHURCH.        [Lect.  iv. 

opposition  to  the  law,  and  so  claiming  Paul  as  an 
opponent   of  the    Old    Testament,    he    gave   forth 
ten  of  Paul's  Epistles^  as  the  apostolical  part  of 
his   own  New  Testament,   and   he   adopted   them 
with  little  change.       His   doing   this  shows   how 
little  knowledge  or  study  of  doctrine  there  was  in 
the  Church  at  his  time  ;    because  it  is  impossible 
to  reconcile  such  Epistles  as  Romans  or  Galatians 
with  his  system.     But  it  was  not  in  those  doctrinal 
books    that    Marcion    found    the    strength    of    his 
position.     It  was  in  the  life  of  the  Saviour.     Jesus 
Christ,  the  Way,  and  the  Truth,  and  the  Life,  was 
the  centre   of  the  theology  of  the  Church  ;    and 
Marcion  must  needs  have  a  Gospel  to  confirm  his 
heretical  views  of  the  Redeemer's  work. 

The  way  he  accomplished  this  is  unparalleled 
in  his  time.  We  have  said — speaking  generally — 
that  none  of  the  books  which  orimnated  in  the 
early  Church  were  rivals  of  our  canonical  Gospels. 
Marcion's  was  a  rival,  but  in  such  a  way  as  to 
show  how  secure  was  the  position  of  the  Gospels 
before  his  time.  Marcion  did  not  dare  to  make 
a  Gospel.  He  could  not  palm  off  a  new  one, 
but  he  thought  he  might  alter  one  of  the  Gospels 
already  in  use ;  and  he  took  the  Gospel  of  Luke 
and  audaciously  mutilated  it  to  suit  his  purpose. 
He  omitted  all  reference  to  the  Baptist  as  the  fore- 

1  The  Pauline  Epistles,  with  the  omission  of  those  to  the  Hebrews 
and  to  Timothy  and  Titus. 


Lect.  IV.]         MARCIOX — THE  CLEMENTINES.  129 

runner  of  the  Christ,  because  he  could  not  allow 
that  a  man  of  the  Old  Testament  could  be  on  the 
same  side  as  the  Saviour ;  he  omitted  all  reference 
to  the  nativity  and  birth  of  Jesus,  because  he 
could  not  admit  that  Christ  came  in  the  flesh — 
that  flesh  which,  in  his  view,  was  of  its  own 
nature  evil  ;  and  he  made  it  appear  that  the 
Supreme  God  came  suddenly  down  in  human  guise, 
though  not  in  human  flesh,  to  the  synagogues  of 
Capernaum.  On  through  all  the  narrative  ^  the 
same  policy  is  pursued  by  this  critic  ;  and  there 
is  no  doubt  that  we  have  in  Marcion's  work  a 
proof  of  the  supreme  position  of  our  canonical 
Gospel  in  the  Church.  It  is  ample  proof  that  the 
heretic's  only  hope  of  a  basis  for  his  Gnosticism 
was  in  mutilating  one  of  the  books  to  which  all 
men  looked  up  with  reverence  and  love.  The 
mutilation  Avas  so  consistent,  so  thorough,  and 
yet  the  changes  were  in  themselves  so  slight, — a 
few  words  dropped  out,  or  one  word  slightly 
changed,  and  the  thing  was  done, — that  Marcion 
hoped  the  simple  -  minded  would  not  see  how 
complete  was  the  revolution  his  sacrilegious 
hand  eflected.  But  after  all  that  he  did,  his 
system  can  be  refuted  from  the  passages  he 
left,  and  from  the  Epistles,  which  he  strangely 
omitted  to  cut  down ;  so  that   one  still   feels  the 

^  See  Canonicity,  pp.  o93-410,  for  a  full  account  of  Marcion,  of 
the  chief  mutilations  made  by  him  on  the  Gospel  of  Luke,  and  of  tlie 
reasons  which  probably  moved  him  to  the  mutilation  in  each  case. 


130  CANON  IN  THE  EARLY  CHURCH.        [Lect.  iv. 

vigorous  Tertullian  to  have  been  right  when 
he  said  :  '  Marcion,  I  pity  thee.  Thy  labour  is 
in  vain ;  for  my  Jesus  Christ  still  remains  in  thy 
Gospel.' 

We  now  turn  to  look  at  Gnosticism  in  the  regions 
of  imagination.  In  doing  so  we  have  to  name 
Gnostics  of  an  earlier  time.  Gf  Simon  Magus, 
'  the  hero  of  the  romance  of  heresy/  with  which  we 
have  to  do,  and  the  reputed  founder  of  Gnosticism, 
we  know  very  little  that  can  be  relied  upon.  But 
what  we  do  know  shows  that  he  had  attempted  to 
make  a  cosmogony,  of  which  the  central  tenet  was 
that  the  material  creation  is  the  result  of  the 
degradation  of  a  thought  of  God  ;  and  that  all 
manifestations  of  the  Supreme  God,  whether  as 
Father,  Son,  or  Holy  Spirit,  were  designed  to  set 
that  captive  thought  of  God  free  from  its  fetters. 
Simon  himself  claimed  to  be  the  mighty  manifesta- 
tion of  God,  the  impersonation  of  the  Holy  Spirit ; 
'  the  great  power  of  God,'  said  his  partisans  in 
Samaria ;  and  no  other  Gnostic  dared,  as  he  seems 
to  have  done,  thus  to  set  himself  above.  Jesus  Christ. 
Succeeding  ages  kept  him  in  mind  ;  but  we  should 
hear  little  of  him  were  it  not  for  a  strange  Komance 
which  has  come  down  to  us  from  about  the  middle 
of  the  second  century,  with  Simon  for  its  hero.  It 
is  known  in  two  forms,  as  the  '  Clementine  Homilies  ' 
(in  Greek)  and  the  ^  Recognitions  of  Clement '  (in 
Latin).     An  early  Judseo- Christian  set  himself  to 


Lect.  IV.]  THE  GNOSTIC  ROMANCE.  131 

exalt  Simon  Peter  and  the  Jewish  party  in  the 
Christian  Church  ;  and  under  the  form  of  an 
autobiography  of  a  rich  young  man,  Clement  by 
name,  who  had  lost  his  means  and  his  family,  and 
who  followed  the  fortunes  and  recorded  the  sermons 
of  Peter,  we  have  a  sharp  contrast  between  the 
teachings  of  Peter  and  those  of  Simon  Magus.  It 
is  not  possible  to  overlook  the  fact  that  some  of 
the  positions  said  to  be  maintained  by  Simon  are 
really  those  of  Paul.  Paul's  greatness  is  shown 
by  the  fact  that  the  writer  never  dares  to  name  him. 
At  the  same  time,  the  speculations  and  the  story 
of  Simon  himself  are  recorded  in  parts  of  the 
strange  farrago,  and  we  are  often  reminded  of  the 
collision  between  Simon  and  the  apostles  of  which 
we  are  told  by  St.  Luke  (Acts  viii.).  As  the 
narrative  proceeds  the  conflict  deepens,  until  at 
last  righteousness  triumphs,  the  lost  parents  of 
Clement  are  found,  and  the  truth  is  established 
by  miracle  and  judgment. 

It  has  been  attempted  to  find  in  this  book  the 
canonical  book  of  the  Judseo-Christian  party  in  the 
Church.  But  more  deliberate  study  has,  I  believe, 
dissipated  this  idea.  The  work  has  none  of  the 
characteristics  of  a  book  to  be  regarded  as  Scrip- 
ture. It  supposes  that  its  readers  or  hearers  are 
familiar  with  the  Old  Testament,  and  also  with 
the  Gospel  narrative.  It  is  a  polemical  work, 
treating  all    Scripture,   Old   Testament  and  New, 


132  CAXON  IX  THE  EARLY  CHURCH.         [Lect.  iv. 

with  great  freedom  ;  but  the  materials  thus  mani- 
pulated can  for  the  most  part  be  found  in  our 
Bibles.  There  are  only  three  or  four  sayings^ 
ascribed  to  Christ  which  we  do  not  find  in  our  New 
Testament ;  and  while  their  actual  source  is  not 
known,  they  are  such  as  might  well  be  found  in 
oral  tradition.  We  do  not  care  to  deny  the  possi- 
bility of  their  being  drawn  from  some  apocryphal 
or  extra-canonical  gospel,  but  we  can  say  that  no 
one  knows  what  it  is.  On  the  other  hand,  there 
are  quotations  from  Matthew,  many,  clear,  and 
detailed;  Mark  is  unquestionably  used  ;  and  not 
only  are  there  allusions  to  Luke,  but  there  are 
quotations  from  John. 

The  history  of  this  last  piece  of  evidence  as  to  the 
use  of  the  fourth  Gospel  is  singular.  It  forms 
one  of  several  recent  discoveries  which  have  helped 
to  make  the  evidence  of  the  reception  of  the  New 
Testament  Scripture  clearer  than  in  former  days. 
When  Baur  promulgated  his  famous  theory  of  the 
gradual  growth  of  the  New  Testament  and  of  the 
recent  date  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  he  and  his  fol- 
lowers exalted  the  antiquity  and  value  of  the 
Clementines,  and  pointed  to  their  independence  of 
our  Gospels,  and  to  the  absence  of  any  definite 
quotation  from  the  fourth  Gospel.  While  their 
date  was  carried  back  to  the  middle  of  the  century, 

^  Horn.  iii.   50,  55,   xix.    20,    and  perhaps  xii.    2.     See    Canoniclti/, 
p.  Ixvii. 


Lect.  IV.]  THE  GNOSTIC  ROMANCE.  133 

John's  Gospel  was  supposed  not  to  have  been 
publicly  known  until  about  a.d.  160.  AVhen  Baur 
wrote,  the  Homilies  (or  Greek  form)  of  the  Clemen- 
tines were  not  complete.  But  when  the  complete 
manuscript  was  published  by  Dressel,  a.d.  1853,  it 
was  found  that  there  was  in  the  previously  unknown 
portion  {Horn.  xix.  22)  a  quotation  from  the  account 
of  the  healing  of  the  bhnd  man  in  John's  Gospel. 
However  early,  therefore,  may  be  the  date  of  the 
Homilies,  by  so  much  the  earlier  is  the  testimony 
to  the  public  position  of  John's  Gospel.  It  is  not 
only  that  this  one  reference  to  the  blind  man  is 
found,  but  its  indisputable  existence  enables  us  to 
put  due  weight  on  some  other  less  distinct  allusions, 
so  that  we  can  now  find  frequent  traces  of  the  fourth 
Gospel  in  this  strange  Ptomance.^  To  the  Epistles 
of  Paul  there  is  no  undoubted  reference,  and  this 
makes  the  apparent  assault  on  St.  Paul's  views  the 
more  perplexing.  Paul's  views  were,  of  course,  well 
known  long  before  this  time,  and  it  is  curious  to  see 
how  they  are  denounced  without  being  stated. 
But  whatever  may  have  been  the  theology  of  the 
author  of  the  Clementine  story,  the  whole  texture 
of  the  book  shows  its  unfitness  to  be  the  Scripture 
of  any  sect.  It  is  the  work  of  an  individual 
expressing  the  prejudices  of  a  section  of  the  com- 
munity ;  and  its  wordy,  irrelevant,  and  complicated 

1  The  necessity  of  regeneration  {Horn.  xi.  26).  '  I  am  the  door  of  the 
sheep.  My  sheep  hear  my  voice '  (llom.  iii.  52)  ;  and  also  John 
viii.  44,  compared  with  Horn.  iii.  25. 


134  CANON  IN  THE  EARLY  CHURCH.         [Lect.  iv. 

discussions  are  incapable  of  furnishing  guidance  to 
any  one  who  desires  to  stand  in  an  intelligent 
relation  to  Christianity. 

The  foregoing  are  three  Gnostics  whom  we  may 
take  as  types.     But  of  the  Gnostics  as  a  whole  we 
nmy  say  that  they  tend  to  confirm  the  position  of 
the  canonical  books.      Some  of  them  might  reject 
one  ]3art  and  some  another  of  the  complete  Christian 
doctrine,   but   more   usually   they   exaggerated  an 
undoubted  truth.      Thus  Simon,  when  he  claimed 
that  he  was  the  Great  Incarnation,^  showed  that  he 
adopted  the  central  fact  of  Christianity — God  mani- 
fest in  the  flesh ;  when  Cerinthus,^  and  such  as  he, 
regarded  the  material  w^orld  as  the  work  of  beings 
inferior  to  the  Great  God,  he  show^ed  his  conviction 
that  the  revelation  of  the   Suj)reme  One  was  the 
glory  of  the  Christian  era,  for  that  the  Great  God  is 
nearer  to  man  than  He  had  ever  been  before  Christ 
came ;    and  even  the  Naassenes    or  Ophites,^  who 
declared  that  Cain  and  the  Sodomites  had  been  the 
champions  of  oppressed  truth,   were  led   to   their 
grotesque  heresies  by  a  desire  to  show  how  much 
better,  brighter,  and  broader  is  the  revelation  in  the 
New  Testament  than   men   had    ever  dreamed  of 
before. 

Thus  uj)  to  the  middle  of  the  second  century  we 
have  found  that  our  New  Testament  is  the  centre 


1  See  Canonicity,  p.  383.  ^  g^g  Canonicity,  p.  384. 

^  See  Canonicity^  p.  385,  and  note  ;  see  also  p.  388. 


Lect.  IV.]  THE  GNOSTIC  KOMANCE.  135 

of  life  alike  in  the   orthodox   Church  and   in  the 
Gnostic  sects  outside  of  it} 

^  On  the  Gnostics  as  connected  with  the  apocryphal  books  time  does 
not  permit  us  to  speak  fully  here.  See  the  chapter  '  Apocryphal  Litera- 
ture '  in  Ccmonicity,  Introduct,  p.  eviii.  The  '  Gospel  of  James,'  '  Acts 
of  Paul  and  Thecla,'  and  '  Acts  of  Pilate,'  all  testify  to  the  books  of  the 
New  Testament.  The  first  two  are  probably  of  the  first  cejitury  ;  the 
last  is  of  uncertain  age  in  its  present  form. 


LECTUEE  y. 

EVIDENCE  OF  THE  APOLOGISTS,  VERSIONS,  AND  CHRISTIAN 


"We  have  traced  the  testimonies  to  the  Canon 
through  the  Gnostics  till  the  second  quarter  of  the 
second  century  was  well  begun.  But  we  must 
now  come  back  from  those  collateral  witnesses  to 
consult  the  writers  who  may  be  regarded  as  in  the 
direct  line  of  the  Church.  The  period  from  a.d. 
130  to  A.D.  170  is  remarkable  as  an  era  of  Apologies. 
The  Apologists  were  men  who  defended  Christians 
rather  than  Christianity  against  the  prejudices  and 
assaults  of  both  the  vulgar  and  the  leaders  of  Rome. 
They  were  concerned  to  make  it  clear  that  heathen 
rulers  would  be  well  advised  if  they  allowed  Chris- 
tians to  live  undisturbed  in  the  practice  of  their 
religion,  inasmuch  as,  in  consequence  of  adopting 
that  religion,  they  led  better  lives,  and  were  there 
fore  more  useful  citizens  than  the  other  subjects  of 
the  empire.  Justin  Martyr  was  the  first  Avhose 
writings  have  come  down  to  us.  Quadratus,  Aris- 
tides,  and  Agrippa  Castor  were  older,  but  their 
writings  have  perished.^    Justin  challenges  all  men 

^  See  Canonlcitij^  p.  C6,  note. 


Lect.  v.]  JUSTIN  MARTYR.  137 

to  apply  the  test  of  a  good  and  useful  life  to  the  dis- 
ciples of  Jesus  Christ  as  compared  with  any  or  all  of 
their  heathen  neiofhbours.  He  shows  how  their  re- 
cognition  of  obligations  to  a  spiritual  God  and  to  a 
holy  Saviour  led  to  their  being  chaste,  peace-loving, 
honourable  in  business,  obedient  to  rulers  ;  and  he 
shows  that,  instead  of  practising  horrible  secret 
rites,  as  vulgar  gossip  would  have  it,  they  had  a 
worship  which  was  simple  and  pure,  naturally  fitting 
them  for  works  of  mutual  charity  and  helpfulness. 
^  We  continually  remind  ourselves  of  these  things, 
and  the  Avealthy  among  us  help  the  needy,  and  we 
always  keep  together ;  and  for  all  things  wherewith 
we  are  supplied  we  bless  the  Maker  of  all,  through 
His  Son  Jesus  Christ,  and  through  the  Holy 
Spirit.'^  It  was  to  be  expected  that  such  Apologies 
or  defences,  being  addressed  to  heathen,  would  not 
quote  the  sacred  books  in  the  same  way  as  would 
have  been  natural  in  exhorting  Christians.  But  not 
only  is  there  an  absence  of  quotation,  there  is  ab- 

1  Peregrinus  burned  himself  about  a.d.  165.  His  story  (which  ilhis- 
trates  Justin)  is  told  us  by  liis  contemporary  Lucian,  a  mocking  heathen, 
the  registrar  of  Alexandria,  to  this  effect : — In  prison,  men  came  from 
the  cities  of  Asia  to  minister  to  him.  'Not  being  able  to  effect  his 
release,  they  did  him  all  kinds  of  offices,  and  that  not  in  a  careless 
manner,  but  with  the  greatest  assiduity  ;  for  even  betimes  in  the  morning 
there  would  be  at  the  prison  old  women,  some  widows,  and  also  orphan 
children  ;  and  some  of  the  chief  of  their  men,  by  corrupting  the  keepers, 
would  get  into  prison  and  stay  the  whole  night  with  him,  and  there 
they  had  a  good  supper  together,  and  their  sacred  discourses.  .  .  . 
It  is  incredible  what  expedition  they  use  when  any  of  their  friends  are 
known  to  be  in  trouble.  In  a  word,  they  spare  nothing  upon  such  an 
occasion  ;  and  Peregrinus'  claim  brought  him  in  a  good  sum  of  money 
from  them  ;  for  these  miserable  men  have  no  doubt  that  they  shall  be 


138         EVIDENCE  OF  THE  APOLOGISTS,  ETC.       [Lect.  v. 

solutely  no  case  of  their  naming  the  Gospels  in  con- 
nection with  the  authors.^  Justin  sets  the  example  ; 
his  disciple  Tatian  follows  it  in  his  *  Oration  to  the 
Gentiles ; '  and  even  Tertullian,  though  on  other 
occasions  he  is  most  profuse  and  minute  in  his 
quotations,  when  he  is  writing  his  ^  Apology '  never 
names  the  Gospels.  Nor  does  even  Cyprian  at  a 
later  date,  when  the  books  were  familiarly  known 
to  all.  The  truth  is  that  in  those  times  Christians 
had  not  so  much  call  to  prove  to  heathen  what 
hooks  were  their  standards,  as  to  show  what  manner 
of  men  they  were  in  daily  life.  And  one  cannot  read 
those  old  defences  of  the  reliofion  of  Christ  without 
feeling  how  perilous  it  would  be  in  many  respects 
to  challenge  heathen  enemies  to  apply  to  us  in  these 
days  the  practical  tests  which  were  invited  in  the 
second  century.  Justin  himself  is  an  instance  of 
the  power  of  the  lives  of  Christians  over  fair 
observers.  He  had  tried  in  his  youth  the  Peripa- 
tetic and  the  Pythagorean  philosophy  for  comfort, 
but  in  vain.  He  next  turned  to  Platonism,  and 
'such  was  my  stupidity,'  he  says,  'that  I  expected 
forthwith  to  look  upon  God,  for  this  is  the  end  of 

immortal  and  live  for  ever,  therefore  they  contemn  death,  and  many  of 
them  surrender  themselves.  ^Moreover,  their  first  lawgiver  has  taught 
them  that  they  are  all  brethren.  .  .  .  They  have  a  sovereign  con- 
tempt for  all  things  of  this  world,  and  look  upon  them  as  common, 
and  trust  one  another  with  them  without  any  particular  security,  for 
which  reason  any  subtle  fellow  may  by  good  management  impose  upon 
those  simple  people,  and  grow  rich  among  them  '  (Lucian,  De  Morte 
Peregrini^  chap.  xi.     Canonicity,  p.  3G8). 

^  See  Norton,  Genuineness  of  the  Gospels^  i.  137,  for  an  eloquent  passage. 


Lect.  V.J  JUSTIN  MARTYR.  139 

Plato's  philosophy.'  In  this  mood  he  was  when  he 
found  God  by  looking  on  good  men,  not  by  the 
exercise  of  Platonic  meditation.  ^  For  what  man  who 
is  voluptuous,  or  who  regards  the  eating  of  human 
flesh  as  an  enjoyment  [these  were  the  vulgar  charges 
against  Christians],  could  welcome  death  with  the 
certainty  of  being  deprived  of  life's  pleasures?' 
While  thus  touched  with  noble  sympathy  for 
Christ's  disciples,  he  one  day  met  a  disciple  who 
had  grown  grey  in  Christ's  service,  'a,  meek  and 
venerable  man,'  who  told  him  that  what  Socrates 
and  Plato  despairingly  longed  for  had  actually 
come  to  pass,  and  that  the  living  God  had  actually 
spoken  to  men  by  the  Divine  Spirit.  The  venerable 
Christian  adjured  him  to  pray  that  the  gates  of 
light  might  be  opened  to  him.  To  Justin  was 
immediately  granted  divine  understanding,  and  he 
was  soon  possessed  with  a  love  of  the  prophets 
and  of  those  men  who  are  Christ's  friends  ;  and  he 
'  pondered  these  things  in  his  mind,'  and  saw  that 
Christianity  is  the  only  sure  and  fit  philosophy. 
Full  of  faith  and  zeal,  he  travelled  over  the  earth 
preaching  the  religion  of  Jesus.  He  died  a  noble 
death — the  story  of  which  is  more  pathetic  because 
it  reveals  to  us  the  Poman  judge's  inability  to  com- 
prehend faith  in  the  unseen,  and  a  religion  which 
needed  no  temple,  than  because  it  tells  how  a 
Christian  won  his  crown. 

Justin  Martyr  has  not  only  left  an  Apology  (or 


140         EVIDENCE  OF  THE  APOLOGISTS,  ETC.      [Lect.  v. 

two  Apologies^  if  they  be  not  parts  of  one),  we 
have  also  from  him  a  Dialogue  with  Trypho,  a 
Jew ;  and  we  thus  see  how  a  Christian  philosopher 
and  teacher  met  the  Gentile  on  the  one  hand  and 
Israel  on  the  otlier.  This  double  relation  would 
of  itself  ^ive  value  to  Justin's  words  ;  but  in 
another  double  relation  he  is  equally  memorable. 
He  stands  midway  between  the  Apostle  John  (a.d. 
90-100),  the  last  of  the  Evangelists,  and  Irenseus, 
bishop  of  Lyons  (a.d.  180),  in  whose  writings  we 
find  beyond  all  question  the  great  bulk  of  our  New 
Testament  treated  as  canonical.  Justin's  Apology 
to  the  Emperor  w^as  presented  about  a.d.  140,  so 
that  we  know  the  date  of  his  full  activity. 

Forty  years  before,  John  had  died  in  that  city  of 
Ephesus  which  w^as  the  scene  of  Justin's  Dialogue ; 
forty  3^ears  later,  Irenaeus,  w'ho  was  Polycarp's 
scholar  in  Asia,  perhaps  in  that  same  Ephesus, 
succeeded  to  the  bishopric  of  Lyons.  Nor  is  even 
this  all  that  makes  Justin  remarkable.  Being  a 
native  of  Samaria,  he  w^as  familiar  with  the  life  and 
work  of  another  Samaritan,  Simon  Magus,  the 
founder  of  Gnosticism.  Being  an  enemy  of  Gnos- 
ticism, Justin  wrote  a  treatise  (now  lost)  against 
Marcion,  his  contemporary.  '  And  there  is 
Marcion,'  he  says  in  his  Apology,  'a  native  of 
Pontus,  who  is  even  at  this  day  alive  and  teaching 
his  disciples  to  believe  in  some  other  God  greater 
than  the  Creator.'     There  may  have  met  in  Kome 


Lect.  v.]  JUSTIN  MARTYJi.  141 

some  day  Marcion,  who  made  the  first  Canon  by 
binding  together  his  edition  of  St.  Luke's  Gospel 
and  ten  Epistles  of  St.  Paul ;  Yalentinus,  the  founder 
of  a  heresy  which  seized  the  minds  of  the  people, 
but  who  used  our  whole  New  Testament  without 
mutilation ;  Tatian,  who  not  only  ^  apologized ' 
for  Christians  to  the  emperor,  but  blended  our 
four  Gospels  in  a  Harmony ;  and  Justin  Martyr 
himself 

It  may  seem  strange  that  Justin's  testimony 
should  be  so  much  more  of  a  battle.-ground  than 
that  of  any  of  those  others.  But  a  battle- 
ground it  has  been  for  many  a  day ;  though  it 
needs  no  prophet  to  see  that  the  tide  of  war  must 
soon  flow  away  from  it,  and  leave  it  in  possession 
of  orthodox  Cliristians.  Our  older  critics  and 
apologists  confidently  claimed  him  as  a  witness 
for  all  our  Gospels  ;  their  recent  followers, 
especially  in  England,  have  been  too  timid  to 
take  the  same  position ;  but  now  they  are  taking 
heart  of  grace  again,  as  well  they  may. 

What  makes  Justin's  testimony  difficult  is  that 
instead  of  calling  his  authorities  ^  Gospels,'  he 
calls  them  ^  Memoirs ;'  either  owing  to  some  of 
the  classical  aflectations  from  which  he  was  by  no 
means  free,  or  perhaps  because  he  thought  that 
his  readers,  who  did  not  know  the  meaning  of 
'  Gospels,'  would  understand  the  descriptive  term 
to   denote   that   the   books   contained  a   historical 


142         EVIDENCE  OF  THE  APOLOGISTS,  ETC.      [Lect.  v. 

account  of  Christ.  But  it  can  be  easily  shown 
that  Justin  was  quoting  our  Gospels  all  the 
while.  He  cays  that  the  '  Memoirs '  on  which 
he  relies  were  WTitten  by  apostles  and  their 
companions  (words  which  remind  us  of  St.  Luke's 
preface)  ;  that  they  were  publicly  read  in  church 
along  wdth  the  writings  of  the  prophets  ;  that 
they  contain  full  accounts  of  Jesus  Christ, — nay, 
he  on  one  occasion  says  they  were  ^called  Gospels/ 
and  at  another  time  he  refers  to  their  substance 
or  contents  as  ^  the  Gospel.'  ^  His  opponent, 
Tryplio  the  Jew,  admits  having  read  them  ;  so 
that  we  know  they  were  publicly  accepted  by 
friend  and  foe  at  that  date  as  the  authoritative 
books  of  the  Christian  faith. 

It  is  quite  true  that  he  never  quotes  any  one 
Gospel  by  name  in  his  works  still  extant;  but  in 
appealing  to  a  heathen  there  would  have  been 
little  propriety  in  doing  such  a  thing;  and,  as  we 
have  seen,  no  other  Apologist  did  it  any  more 
than  Justin.  It  is  also  true  that  in  his  argument 
with  the  Jew  he  uses  some  half-dozen^  trifling' 
apocryphal  additions  to  the  gospel  narrative, 
but  it  is  to  be  observed  that  he  never  says  he 
got  those  things  from  the  Memoirs.  It  is  not 
less  true  that  in  his  avowed  quotations  he  almost 
confined   himself  to    the  Jeivish    Scriptures  when 

^  See  Canonicity,  pp.  59-64. 

^  See  the  texts  in  Canonicity^  p.  59. 


Lect.  v.]  JUSTIN  MARTYR.  143 

arguing  with  Trypho;  but  every  raodern  missionary 
to  the  Jews  must  do  the  same,  for  thus  only  is 
there  common  ground  on  which  to  go.  The 
Christian  Memoirs  are  valuable,  as  containing 
facts  which  fulfil  those  Jewish  Scriptures,  but  the 
Christian  champion  must  quote  them  to  a  Jew  as 
history,  not  as  Scripture.  It  is  with  the  Gospels 
Justin  deals,  not  with  St.  Paul's  Epistles, —  as 
indeed  how  could  he  in  such  a  case  ? — nor  with 
any  other  books  of  the  New  Testament,  save  that 
once  in  a  formal  and  circuitous  fashion  he  speaks 
of  the  Apocalypse  of  John.  It  is  true  that  he 
does  not  always  quote  correctly — that  his  words 
are  not  perfectly  identical  w4th  those  of  our 
Gospels.  But  they  who  on  that  account  supply 
him  with  another  Gospel  now  lost, — the  ^Gospel 
of  the  Hebrews,'  or  such  like, — must  give  him  a 
new  copy  even  of  his  master,  Plato,  whom  in 
seven  quotations  he  does  not  once  quote  correctly ; 
and  they  must  also  suppose  that  he  changed 
even  his  Old  Testament  as  well  as  his  New, 
because  in  more  than  half  the  cases  when  he 
repeats  a  quotation,  he  changes  some  part  of  the 
expression  ! 

It  is  almost  incredible  that  on  such  slight 
grounds  as  that  a  classical  philosopher  usually 
called  the  books  Memoirs  (though  once  he  called 
them  Gospels),  and  that  he  did  not  quote  them 
quite    verbatim,    some    critics    should   for   so    long 


14:4:         EVIDENXE  OF  THE  APOLOGISTS,  ETC.      [Lect.  v. 

Lave  maintained  that  Justin  did  not  know  or  did 
not  acknowledge  our  Gospels.  If  this  contention 
were  well  founded,  it  would  follow  that  the  books 
w^hich  Justin  did  know,  and  which  were  accepted 
in  his  day  by  Christian  congregations  and  Jewish 
antagonists,  disappeared,  and  were  never  more 
heard  of  —  disappeared  before  even  his  disciple 
Tatian  wrote  a  Harmony  of  four, — for  Tatian's 
four  are  ours.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  we  find  Justin 
using  each  one  of  our  Gospels.  He  uses  the  begin- 
ning of  Matthew's  Gospel,  with  its  special  information 
about  the  Magi ;  the  opening  of  Luke,  with  its 
account  of  the  mission  of  the  angel  to  Mary  ;  Mark's 
Gospel,  with  its  statement  that  the  sons  of  Zebedee 
were  Boanerges ;  and  John's,  with  its  high  teaching 
of  the  new  birth,  of  the  Word  made  flesh,  of  the 
living  water,  and  of  the  heavenly  habitations. 

Hellenist  by  training  though  he  was,  he  never 
even  once  quotes  one  of  the  Old  Testament 
Apocrypha. 

With  the  name  of  another  of  the  Apologists, 
Justin's  pupil,  Tatian,  has  long  been  connected  a 
certain  mystery,  because  of  the  loss  of  his  chief 
work,  the  Diatessaron,  to  which  reference  is  made 
by  Eusebius.  During  the  reign  of  Marcus 
Aurelius,  Tatian  wrote  an  'Oration  to  the  Greeks,' 
in  which  are  unmistakeable  quotations  from  John's 
Gospel ;  ^   but  his  Harmony  being  lost,  and  some 

^  See  Canonicity,  p.  180. 


Lect.  v.]  EPIIREM  SYRUS.  145 

later  stages  of  his  life  being  chargeable  with  the 
promulgation  of  ascetic  heresies,  doubt  has  been 
thrown  on  his  having  used  our  four  Gospels  in 
making  the  Harmony.  Two  curious  slips  of 
ancient  writers  increased  the  perplexity  ;  one  by 
Victor  of  Capua,  who  says  that  he  learned  from 
Eusebius  that  Tatian  wove  together  one  Gospel 
out  of  the  four,  to  which  he  attached  the  title 
of  Diapente  [i.e.  of  five)  [instead  of  Diatessaron 
[i.e.  of  four)]  ;  and  another  by  Epiphanius,  who 
says  that  some  thought  the  Diatessaron  was  the 
Gospel  of  the  Hebrews.  Victor  makes  an  obvious 
slip  (1)  because  he  gives  as  his  authority  Eusebius, 
w^ho  says  no  such  thing ;  and  (2)  because  his 
words  contradict  themselves,  for  nobody  would 
give  the  name  Diapente  to  a  thing  made  of  four. 
Epiphanius'  words  must  remain  as  the  outcome 
of  one  of  his  unfounded  ideas,  conceived  and 
uttered  on  the  impulse  of  a  moment.  Many  other 
conjectures  of  scholars  are  proved  to  be  baseless 
by  a  recent  discovery,  of  which  we  must  now  speak. 
One  of  the  fathers  of  the  Syrian  Church  in 
the  fourth  century,  Ephrem  by  name,  a  critic,  a 
theologian,  and  a  poet,  wrote  a  commentary  on 
Tatian's  Diatessaron,  and  that  work  has  recently 
been  discovered  in  an  Armenian  translation.  ^ 
Ephrem  does  not  quote  all  Tatian's  text ;  but  he 
quotes  enough  to   show   us    that  Tatian  was    not 

1  See  note  on  Tatian's  Diatessaron  at  the  end  of  this  chapter. 
K 


146  SECOND  CENTURY.  [Lfxt.  v. 

making  what  we  call  a  Harmony,  but  was  com- 
piling a  life  of  Christ  —  a  Gospel — by  weaving 
together  the  four  Gospels  of  Matthew,  Mark, 
Luke,  and  John.^  His  title  literally  tells  his 
plan.  It  is  'By  means  of  Four'  —  by  means  of 
the  Four  Evangelists — Tatian  constructs  the  life 
of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  His  first  paragraph  is 
the  prologue  of  John's  Gospel :  '  In  the  beginning 
was  the  Word ; '  and  thus  we  see  that  at  that 
time  this  scholarly  Christian  teacher  had  no 
more  doubt  of  John  than  of  the  rest  of  the 
Evangelists.  On  through  the  life  of  Jesus, 
Tatian  pursues  his  plan,  quoting  now  from  one, 
now  from  another ;  the  last  chapter  of  John 
being  woven  into  it,  and  allusion  being  made  to 
the  disputed  verses  in  the  end  of  Mark.  The 
close  of  the  work  is  taken  from  Luke  and  the 
Acts,  and  tells  of  the  disciples  tarrying  in  Jeru- 
salem till  they  should  be  endowed  with  power 
from  on  high. 

It  is  not  easy  to  exaggerate  the  importance  of 
this,  the  most  recent  discovery  in  biblical  literature. 
Like  many  discoveries  illustrative  of  the  Old 
Testament,  this  new  work  confirms  the  ordinary 
view  of  the  Church  as  regards  the  age  and 
authority  of  the  books  of  Scripture.  Its  import- 
ance is  immense,  for  it  not  only  proves  that  Tatian 

1  Zahn,  in  his  Forschimgen  zur  GescJiichte  des  N.  T.  Kanons,  1  TlieiL, 
Tatian's  Diatessaron^  engages  in  the  somewhat  unprofitable  task  of 
fixinor  Tatian's  text. 


Lect.  v.]  later  apologists.  147 

used  our  Gospels  in  making  his  work,  but  it 
necessarily  throws  back  light  upon  the  earlier 
quotations  in  Justin,  in  Basilides,  and  the  rest, 
so  as  to  show  that  even  the  fourth  Gospel  was  not 
an  invention  of  the  second  century, — as  advanced 
critics  would  have  led  us  to  believe, — but  was 
accepted  at  the  very  earliest  times  as  the  work 
of  the  beloved  apostle  himself^ 

There  are  other  Apologists,  of  whom,  if  time  per- 
mitted, it  would  be  right  to  speak  in  some  detail. 
Any  such  detail  would  show  that  what  we  have 
seen  to  characterize  Justin  and  Tatian  is  also  found 
in  the  others.  Their  direct  references  to  the  New 
Testament  are  few  ;  their  defence  of  the  character 

1  The  author  of  Supernatural  Religion  will  need  to  alter  his  text  ia 
regard  to  Tatian,  as  he  had  to  alter  it  regarding  Marcion.  He  siiys : 
*  There  is,  therefore,  no  authority  for  saying  that  Tatian's  Gospel  was  a 
harmony  of  four  Gospels  at  all.  .  .  .  Those  who  called  the  Gospel  used 
by  Tatian  the  Gospel  according  to  the  HebrcM's  must  have  read  the 
work,  and  all  that  we  know  confirms  their  conclusion,'  p.  158.  Again, 
a  little  more  boldly,  he  says:  'No  one  seems  to  have  seen  Tatian 's 
Harmony,  for  the  simple  reason  that  there  was  no  such  work,  and  the 
real  Gospel  used  by  him  was  that  according  to  the  Hebrews,  as  many 
distinctly  and  correctly  called  it,'  p.  160.  Still  more  boldly  he  con- 
tradicts the  Syrian  tradition  that  Ephrem  wrote  a  commentary  on 
Tatian's  Harmony,  and  concludes :  '  All  that  we  know  of  it  [Tatian's 
Gospel],  what  it  did  not  contain,  the  places  where  it  largely 
circulated,  and  the  name  by  which  it  was  called,  identifies  it  with  the 
Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews.'  As  his  manner  is,  the  learned 
author  convinces  himself  by  his  own  assertions,  and  what  he  states  at 
first  as  a  probability  or  as  a  necessity  regarding  Tatian's  Harmony, 
becomes,  ere  he  has  done,  a  sheer  assertion  regarding  Tatian's  Gospel. 
He  has  wrought  himself  up  to  contradict  the  unvarying  statement  of 
antiquity  that  Tatian  wrote  a  Harmony ;  and  to  assert  that  only  those 
spoke  of  it  as  a  Harmony  who  did  not  know  that  it  was  the  Gospel  of  the 
Hebrews.  His  probable  loophole  will  be  that  what  Ephrem  commented 
on  was  the  Harmony  of  Ammonius,  not  that  of  Tatian  at  all. 


148  SECOND  CENTURY.  [Lect.  v. 

of  Christians  is  explicit  and  ample.  Thus  Athena- 
goras,  who,  from  the  strange  title  of  his  work, 
—An  Embassy  about  Christians  (irpea^eia  irepl  %/5to-- 
Tiavoiv), — may  be  supposed  to  have  presented  it  in 
person  to  the  Emperor  Marcus  Aurelius,  names  no 
book,  but  refers  to  many,  both  gospels  and  epistles. 
The  wise  man  who  then  ruled  the  world  must  have 
been  impressed  by  the  calm  force  with  which 
Athenagoras,  '  Athenian  philosopher  and  Christian,' 
presented  the  case  for  the  Christians.^ 

Melito  of  Sardis  was  a  contemporary  of  Athena- 
goras ;  a  man  of  much  industry,  the  very  titles 
of  whose  works  (Euseb.  H.  E.  iv.  26)  show  that 
he  wrote  a  library.  About  a.d.  170  or  a.d.  176  he 
presented  his  Apology,  which  seems  to  be  lost, 
though  a  kindred  work  of  his  comes  to  us  through 
the  Syriac ;  but  a  fragment  of  a  letter  he  wrote  to 
a  friend  is  interesting,  as  containing  a  list  of  the 
Old  Testament  books,  Esther  excepted,  which  he 
calls  at  one  time  '  the  old  books,'  and  at  another 
Hhe  books  of  the  Old  Covenant.'  From  those 
phrases  we  are  entitled  to  infer  that  he  recognised 
certain  '  new  books,'  or  '  books  of  the  New  Covenant,' 
on  the  same  level  with  the  old." 

Theophilus,  another  contemporary  and  apologist, 
— for  those  days  of  the  Antonines  were  the  days 
when  Christianity  was  on  its  defence  as  a  power  in 

^  See  Canonicity^  p.  131. 

2  See  Canonicltij^  p.  43,  and  iDtroduction,  xci. 


Lect.  v.]  THEOPHILUS.  149 

moulding  the  lives  of  the  subjects  of  the  Koman 
Empire, — has  the  distinction  of  being  the  first 
whom  we  find  quoting  the  Gospel  of  John  by  name. 
Before  this  time  Heracleon,  a  Gnostic,  had  written 
a  commentary  on  that  Gospel,  but  it  has  perished, 
save  what  is  embalmed  in  Origen.  Theophilus' 
work  which  remains  is  not  an  Apology  addressed 
to  the  Emperor,  but  a  treatise  written  to  convince  a 
heathen  friend  of  the  paramount  claims  of  Chris- 
tianity. He  founds  largely  on  the  Old  Testament, 
but  he  also  refers  to  the  New,  and  quotes  Timothy 
explicitly  as  '  the  divine  word  '  and  John's  Gospel 
by  name.  He  is  also  said  to  have  written  a 
Harmony,  and  is  known  to  have  quoted  the 
Apocalypse.^  His  words  regarding  John  are  : 
'  The  Holy  Scriptures  teach  us,  and  all  those  who 
are  vessels  of  the  Spirit,  of  whom  is  John,  saying, 
"  In  the  beginning  was  the  Word," '  etc.  He  is  not 
here  making  any  distinction  between  the  Old  Testa- 
ment as  Scripture  and  the  New  Testament  as  in- 
spired ;  but  in  conformity  with  his  j)rinciples,  setting 
all  on  the  same  level  as  vessels  of  the  Spirit,  or  men 
borne  on  by  the  Spirit,  irvevfiaToc^opoL  or  irvevixaro- 
(popoL  (Reuss).  With  the  quotations  of  Theophilus 
we  may  be  supposed  to  have  come  out  of  the  thicket 
to  beaten  tracks,  for  Irenseus  was  publishing  his 
great  work  on  Heresies  at  the  same  time  as  Theo- 

1  See  Canonicity,  pp.  73,  182.     See  the  opinions  of  Theophilus  on  the 
Inspiration  of  Scripture  in  Ad  Autol.  ii.  22,  33,  35  ;  also  iii.  12,  14. 


loO  SECOND  CENTURY.  [Lect.  v. 

philus  wrote  to  his  heathen  friend  ;^  and  in  Irenseus' 
systematic  treatise  we  find  that  our  New  Testament 
is  the  Canon,  inspired,  authoritative,  and  long  closed. 
The  history  of  the  Canon  ceases  to  be  matter  of  dis- 
pute when  we  enter  with  Irenseus  on  the  last  quarter 
of  the  second  century,  although  there  is  still  some 
skirmishing  over  the  claim  of  one  or  two  individual 
books  to  be  in  the  sacred  list. 

But  we  may  be  asked  whether  we  have  no 
authorities  save  those  chance  quotations  of  indi- 
vidual writers.  And  we  have  to  answer  that  no 
systematic  treatise  on  Christian  doctrine  has  come 
down  to  us  from  an  earlier  date  than  that  of 
Irenaeus,  though  with  him  the  great  series  begins 
to  which  the  works  of  his  younger  contemporaries. 
Tertullian  and  Clement  of  Alexandria,  and  after 
them  of  Origen,  belong.  But  we  are  not  without 
tidings  of  the  views  of  the  collective  Church  at 
this  same  time.  We  have  versions,  or  translations 
of  the  New  Testament,  rendering  the  original  into 
the  Latin  and  Syrian  languages.  Those  versions 
date  from  the  second  century.  One  is  at  first 
surprised  that  Paul  should  write  to  the  '  Romans ' 
in  Greek,  not  in  Latin,  and  that  a  Latin  translation 
of  the  Gospels  was  not  forthcoming  almost  as  soon 
as  the  originals  were  written.  But  Greek  was  on 
an  equality  with  Latin  as  the  tongue  of  the 
Roman    Empire    at   and   after   the    Christian    era. 

^  Irenaeus  \Yrote  Books  I.  and  II.  not  later  than  a.d.  182. 


Lect.  v.]  EAELY  VERSIONS.  151 

In  the  Roman  Senate,  in  domestic  intercourse, 
in  the  commercial  transactions  in  the  seaports  of 
the  Mediterranean,  and  even  in  Palestine  itself, 
men  spoke  their  thoughts  in  Greek.  An  early 
Syriac  tradition  has  it  that  Mark's  Gospel  was 
written  in  Latin  and  at  Rome,^  and  though  this 
is  more  than  probable,  the  Latin  original,  if  it 
existed,  was  soon  lost  ;  and  it  is  usually  supposed 
that  for  the  first  hundred  years  from  the  time  of  the 
apostles  the  New  Testament  existed  only  in  Greek. 
Enthusiastic  sclK^lars  have  even  made  it  appear  that 
our  Lord  spake  in  Greek  in  the  highlands  of  Judea 
and  in  the  fishing  villages  of  Galilee.  But  though 
this  is  probably  far-fetched,  the  mob  of  Jerusalem 
expected  to  be  addressed  in  Greek  when  a  tumult 
had  brought  them  together  (Acts  xxii.  2),  and  were 
surprised  into  greater  silence  when  the  language 
was  Hebrew.  If  Greek  were  thus  current  even  in 
Palestine,  we  can  understand  what  it  must  have 
been  in  Asia  and  Italy. 

It  was  not  for  Pome,  therefore,  but  for  Africa 
that  the  first  Latin  New  Testament  was  needed. 
All  along  the  northern  coast  of  Africa  was  a  large 
Latin- speaking  native  community,  associated  with 
the  Roman  colonists,  and  for  them  at  an  early  date 
translations  of  books  of  the  New  Testament  were 
needed  and  were  made.  They  were  probably  at 
first  separate,  and  circulating  in  various  forms,  but 

^  See  !Moesinger's  Eplirem  Syi'us,  p.  286. 


152  SECOND  CENTURY.  [Lect.  v. 

eventually  some  of  them  were  collected  so  as  to 
furnish  a  Latin  Testament,  to  which  authority  was 
ascribed.  This  version  had  been  current  long 
before  the  end  of  the  century,  long  enough  to 
mould  popular  speech  and  to  be  itself  revised ; 
and  whether  made  in  Africa  itself  or  in  Italy,  or 
whether  made  in  Africa  and  revised  in  Italy,  its 
rude,  strong  rendering  made  it  the  people's  Bible 
of  the  great  African  Church.  What,  then,  did 
this  Christian  Bible  contain?  In  TertulHan's 
time,  before  the  end  of  the  century,  it  contained  all 
our  New  Testament  save  Second  Peter,  though 
Hebrews  does  not  seem  to  have  been  in  it  at  first, 
and  James  is  not  in  all  the  copies. 

In  like  manner  a  translation  was  made  for  the 
Syrian  Church.  It  was  in  Syria  that  the  Christians 
first  received  their  name,  because  there  they  first 
took  shape  as  an  organized  body  distinct  from  the 
Jews.  Early  traditions  tell  of  an  Eastern  Syrian 
king,  who  wrote  asking  Jesus  Christ  to  leave  the 
inhospitable  and  unbelieving  Jews,  and  promising 
Him  shelter  and  favour  in  his  own  more  kindly 
realm ;  and  they  also  tell  that  our  Lord,  who 
would  not  leave  the  coasts  of  Israel,  promised  to 
send  an  apostle.  They  further  tell  of  apostles 
going  when  the  Lord  had  risen  and  finding  a 
williug  people  in  Eastern  Syria.  This  shows,  at 
least,  how  early  Syria  became  leavened  with 
Christianity.      We  do  not  know  when  the  Syriac 


Lect.  v.]  MURATORIAN  FRAGMENT.  153 

translation  was  made  :  early  statements  ascribe  it 
to  the  apostolic  age,  but  whether  this  be  so  or  not, 
we  cannot  fix  the  date  of  the  Syriac  version  of  the 
New  Testament  later  than  early  in  the  second 
century.  Hegesippus  quoted  'from  the  Syriac' 
(Euseb.  //.  E.,  iv.  22).  Our  remains  of  Greek 
Christian  literature  are  scanty  enough ;  of  Syriac 
directly  we  have  none  from  that  early  date  ;  but 
there  is  reason  to  believe  that  a  Syriac  New 
Testament  was  in  existence  long  before  we  can 
find  an  explicit  quotation  of  it.  So  far  as  we 
know,  it  wanted  from  the  first,  as  it  still  wants, 
the  Apocalypse,  Jude,  Second  Peter,  and  Second 
and  Third  John. 

There  is  one  strange  document,  found  in  Milan 
a  hundred  years  ago,  and  named  after  its  finder 
Muratori,  an  eminent  antiquary,  '  The  Muratorian 
Fragment.'  Whether  it  was  a  formal  document 
compiled  by  men  acting  in  concert,  or  whether  it 
was  a  letter  from  one  man  to  another,  nobody  can 
tell,  for  it  has  neither  beginning  nor  end.  When 
found  it  seemed  to  be  part  of  some  one's  common- 
place book,  for  there  were  other  fragments  beside 
it.  Its  barbarous  Latin  and  peculiar  phrases  lead 
to  the  opinion  that  it  is  probably  a  translation  from 
the  Greek ;  and  from  his  speaking  of  the  times  of 
Pius,  Bishop  of  Rome,  as  being  '  very  lately  m  our 
own  times,'  the  orisfiaal  author  must  have  written 
soon    after    the    middle    of   the    second    centur3\ 


154  SECOND  CENTUEY.  [Lect.  v. 

It  is  the  earliest  attempt  in  existence  to  state 
in  detail  what  books  the  collection  of  Christian 
Scriptures  contains.  Even,  however,  if  we  admit 
this  strange  document  to  be  of  the  early  date 
which  it  claims,  and  if  we  get  over  all  the  difficulty 
of  regarding  an  unauthenticated  fragment  as  an 
infallible  authority,  there  is  still  no  little  doubt  as 
to  its  testimony  on  some  points.  It  is  so  obscure 
that  in  one  or  two  places  almost  anything  may  be 
made  of  it.  It  speaks  of  some  books  which  are 
otherwise  unknown — as  when  it  talks  of  an  Epistle 
to  the  Alexandrians,  and  of  a  Book  of  Wisdom, 
written  in  honour  of  Solomon  by  his  friends.^  It 
seems  to  tell  of  works  of  men  who  have  not  been 
heard  of  in  the  field  of  Christian  authorship,  as 
Miltiades^  and  Arsinous.  But  corruption  of  the 
text  may  account  for  most  of  those  inexplicable 
passages,  and  its  early  date  is  made  more  probable 
when  we  see  on  its  list  a  few  other  books  standing 
apparently  alongside  of  those  usually  accepted. 

Having  put  those  minute  points  aside,  and  check- 
ing the  desire  to  speculate  upon  their  enigmas,  we 
find  that  the  broad  outlines  which  remain  are  most 
interesting.  Though  the  beginning  is  lost,  so  that 
Matthew  and  Mark  are  not  named,  there  can  be  no 


^  There  is  a  happy  conjecture  that  tp/xwy  was  really  the  name  of  Philo, 
to  whom  the  authorship  was  ascribed,  and  that  the  translator  mistook 
it  for  '  friends.' 

^  Criticism  overleaps  itself  in  the  attempt  to  make  this  word  into 
Tatiau!    But  the  attempt  has  been  made. 


Lect.  v.]  HARNACK  on  THE  FRAGMENT.  155 

doubt  that  they  were  on  the  list  which  now  begins 
at  Luke,  and  in  which  John  is  said  to  be  the  fourth. 
It  testifies  to  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  to  thirteen 
Epistles  of  Paul,  to  two,  or  perhaps  three.  Epistles 
of  John,  to  the  Epistle  of  Jude,  and  to  the  Apo- 
calypse of  John.  There  is  no  certain  mention  of 
Hebrews ;  and  (if  the  text  be  not  corrupt)  there 
is  distinct  mention  of  the  Apocalypse  of  Peter, 
though  Peter's  Epistles,  like  James',  are  not  named. 
John's  Gospel  is  said  to  have  been  written  at  the 
request  of  his  fellow-disciples,  and  after  they  had 
fasted  together.  All  the  Gospels  are  said  to  come 
from  one  primary  Spirit,  and  therefore  to  maintain 
and  manifest  the  unity  of  the  faith. 

There  is  much  controversy  about  the  principle 
on  which  the  unknown  author  made  ujj  his  Canon, 
or  at  least  believed  the  Church  to  have  made  it 
up.  By  the  simj^le  process  of  reading  into  it  all 
which  he  wishes  to  take  out,  an  eminent  living 
critic^  proves  a  great  many  wonderful  things  from 
this  Muratorian  Fragment.  Thus  he  proves  that 
the  author  admitted  only  what  was  at  once 
apostolical  and  ecclesiastically  catholic,  so  that 
Paul's  Epistles  were  admitted  because  he  wrote 
to  seven  churches,  as  John  wrote  in  the  Apocalypse 
— seven  being  the  perfect  catholic  number.  But 
the  distinguished  critic  has  no  ground  for  this 
idea  of  ecclesiastically  catholic.      The  Epistles   of 

^  Harnack,  iu  Briega^'s  Zeitschrift  for  1879,  p.  358  ff. 


156  SECOND  CENTURY.  [Lect.  v. 

Paul  may  make  up  a  catholic  number,  but  no 
one  of  them  (unless  it  be  Ephesians)  was  written 
to  more  than  one  church.  The  author  of  the 
Fragment  distinctly  says  that  the  Epistles  of  Paul 
show  the  reason,  the  special  occasion,  and  the 
particular  place  for  which  they  Avere  written. 
There  is  nothing  about  catholicity  in  that.  Nor, 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  were  the  '  Catholic  Epistles,' 
as  we  have  them  in  the  New  Testament,  the  first 
to  find  acceptance.  The  Epistles  of  James  and 
Peter  and  Hebrews  are  not  recognised  by  this 
very  author,  though  their  addresses  are  more 
catholic  than  most  of  those  he  does  recognise. 
Again,  the  critic  has  to  invent  a  new  principle 
when  accounting  for  the  reception  into  the  collec- 
tion of  Paul's  letters  to  Timothy,  Titus,  and 
Philemon.  It  is  the  catholicity  of  their  contents, 
their  influence  in  establishing  ecclesiastical  dis- 
cipline (which  is  explained  to  mean  all  'the 
functions  of  the  Christian  Church,  except  such  as 
are  doctrinaV)}  But  the  Epistles  to  Timothy 
and  Titus  are  as  full  of  doctrine  as  of  practice — 
of  doctrine,  too,  put  forward  with  a  sharp  point 
and  a  double  edge.  And,  moreover,  while  one 
may  speak  of  those  letters  as  establishing  church 
discipline,  who  can  say  the  same  of  Philemon? 
That  beautiful,   personal,   social,   domestic    Epistle 

1  Alle   cJm'stlich-kircJdichen    Functionen    mit   Ausnalime   der   dogma- 
tischen^  p.  58G. 


Lect.  v.]  IREX^Urf.  157 

does  not  make  the  return  of  Onesimus  have 
anything  to  do  with  any  discipline  but  that  of 
the  law  of  love.  No  stronger  proof  can  be  found 
of  the  straits  to  which  one  is  put  who  adjusts 
his  facts  to  his  theory  instead  of  his  theory 
to  the  facts,  than  the  further  statement  of  this 
eminent  critic,  that  while  Paul's  letters  were  read, 
Paul  himself  was  forgotten.  As  if  any  man 
could  read  Corinthians  and  Galatians  and  foro^et 
Paul! 

The   author    of  the   Muratorian   Fragment   had 

much  simpler   principles    than    the  Giessen  critic. 

He   knew  that    there    is    a    Spirit   pervading   the 

Church,   and  forming   its    faith  ;    and   that   those 

books  are  at  one  with  that  faith,  and  come  from 

that  one  Spirit.     He  accepts  none  that  have  not 

apostolic  origin,  save  those  which,  like  Luke,  have 

apostolic   sanction.       Paul's  Epistles  were  written 

to  particular  churches  for  particular  needs,  but  the 

Spirit  moved  him  as  He  moved  John  to  write  to 

seven  churches  and    no   more.      Paul's    letters  to 

individuals  were  written  from  affection  and  love, 

but    they    are    hallowed    by    the    whole    Church, 

because    of  the    rules    of    instruction    which   they 

lay    down.       I    do    not   think   that    he    rests    the 

acceptance  of  the  books  upon  the  opinion  of  the 

Church ;    it  is   better  to  say  that  he  rests  it  on 

the  harmony  of  the  Spirit  which  is  in  them  with 

the  Spirit  and  the  faith  of  the  Church.     But  he 


158  SECOND  CENTURY.  [Lect.  v. 

is  quite  clear  that  a  book  written  like  Hermas  in 
the  middle  of  the  second  century  is— just  because 
that  was  its  date — never  to  the  end  of  time  to 
be  read  in  the  Church,  nor  counted  with  the 
prophets,  whose  number  is  complete,  nor  with 
the  apostles.  And  the  work  of  the  heretics, 
Marcion  and  the  rest,  he  scouts. 

This  old  document  always  seems  to  be  older  the 
more  closely  we  study  it ;  and  it  is  with  fresh 
conviction  of  its  age  after  renewed  study  that  I 
point  to  those  principles  of  the  author,  as  showing 
how  men  thought  about  the  New  Testament  in 
the  middle  of  the  second  century. 

At  the  close  of  the  second  century  there  are 
three  men  standing  out  from  all  the  rest;  one 
(Irenceus)  a  bishop  in  Lyons,  and  two  African 
presbyters — Clement  in  Alexandria,  and  Tertullian 
in  Carthage.  Irenceus  comes  first.  He  was  a 
native  of  Asia  Minor,  a  pupil  of  Polycarp,  who  was 
(as  we  have  seen)  the  pupil  of  the  Apostle  John. 
He  went  from  Asia  to  Gaul,  and  was  chosen  bishop 
of  Lyons  in  a.d.  178.  He  had  been  before  that  sent 
from  Gaul  to  Rome  as  a  deputy  of  the  Gallic 
Church ;  and  thus,  on  at  least  one  occasion, 
became  personally  acquainted  with  those  who 
'  seemed  to  be  pillars  of  the  Church '  in  the 
metropolis,  and  with  the  leading  heretics  also. 
He  was  so  impressed  with  the  peril  to  which 
false  teachers  were  bringing  the  members  of  the 


Lect.  v.]  TERTULLIAN.  159 

Church,  especially  those  without  clear  brains/  that 
after  meeting  the  heretics  and  reading  their  books 
he  devoted  himself  on  his  return  to  Gaul  to  com- 
posing an  elaborate  account  and  Refutation  of  all 
Heresies.  In  this  learned,  fair,  and  cautious  book, 
Irenseus  habitually  quotes  the  passages  of  Scripture 
on  which  heretics  relied,  and  those  also  which,  in  his 
opinion,  they  contravened.  From  those  erudite  and 
careful  quotations  we  find  that  Irenseus  founded 
upon  the  four  Gospels,  the  Acts,  twelve  Epistles  of 
Paul  (Philemon  is  not  named,  and  Hebrews  is  not 
acknowledged),  the  First  of  Peter,  and  the  First  and 
Second  of  John,  and  the  Apocalypse.  He  founded 
upon  them  as  upon  an  immovable  rock.  There  are 
for  him  no  books  like  the  Bible- books,  and  the  New 
Testament  is  Bible  to  him  beyond  all  question. 
He  repeatedly  calls  it  ypacpal — '  Scriptures  ; '  and 
he  speaks  of  the  New  Testament  as  falling  into 
two  divisions,  —  ^  Evangelic  and  Apostolic,'  —  a 
division  dating  from  Marcion,  which  we  find 
Clement  of  Alexandria  and  Origen  adopting  with 
the  names  'The  Gospel'  and  'The  Apostle.'^  He 
is  one  of  many  to  say  that  Mark  wrote  his  Gospel 
as  the  contents  of  the  preaching  of  Peter,  whose 
'  scholar  and  interpreter '  Mark  was  ;  and  he  is, 
so  far  as  we  know,  the  first  to  say  that  Luke 
wrote  his   Gospel  as  what   Paul   preached.      His 

1  iz-ii  (/.^  Tsruvng  lou  £yyJ(pcc'hov  l^iTTvx.a.ai,  he  says,  as  showing  why 
some  are  not  heretics.     See  Ref.  Hxr.  Pief.  §  2. 

2  See  many  references,  Canonicity^  pp.  45,  46. 


160  SECOND  CENTURY.  [Lect.  v. 

well  -  known  words  may  be  quoted  here  :  ^  Since 
there  are  four  cUmes  of  the  world  in  which  we 
live,  and  four  great  winds,  and  since  the  Church 
has  been  spread  over  all  the  world,  and  since  the 
gospel  and  the  Spirit  of  Life  is  the  pillar  and 
strength  of  the  Church,  it  is  fitting  that  it  [the 
gospel]  has  four  Pillars  breathing  out  imperishable 
truth  on  every  side,  and  kindling  life  in  men. 
Whence  it  is  evident  that  the  Logos  (Word),  who 
is  Maker  of  all,  who  sitteth  upon  the  cherubim,  and 
controlleth  all,  when  He  had  been  manifested  to 
men,  gave  to  us  a  gospel  under  four  aspects,  but 
bound  together  by  one  Spirit.  There  were  also 
four  general  covenants  given  to  humanity  ;  the 
first  that  of  Noah's  deluge,  with  the  sign  of  the 
bow;  the  second,  Abraham's,  with  the  sign  of 
circumcision ;  the  third,  the  giving  of  law  under 
Moses ;  and  the  fourth,  that  of  the  gospel  through 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.'  ^ 

Contemporary  with  him,  but  about  twenty  years 
later  in  birth  and  death,  was  Tertullian,  the  fiery 
advocate  of  Carthage.  In  his  later  life  he  adopted 
the  heresy  of  Montanism,  —  the  Irvingism  of  the 
second  century,  —  but  through  life  he  was  the 
eloquent  and  impassioned  defender  of  Christianity 
against  Jews,  heretics,  and  heathen.  His  habit 
was  to  establish  his  point  by  a  series  of  systematic 

1  Iren.  Hxr.  iii.  11,  8.    Canonicity^  pp.  68,  69.    See  note  on  '  Irenaeus ' 
at  the  end  of  Lecture  vi. 


Lect.  v.]  clement  of  ALEXANDRIA.  161 

quotations  taken  from  the  books  of  the  New- 
Testament  in  their  order  ;  so  that,  when  he  does 
not  name  a  book  or  a  text  which  would  bear  on 
his  point,  w^e  may  infer  that  he  did  not  know 
it  or  did  not  accept  it.  He  uses  all  our  New 
Testament  except  James,  Second  Peter,  and 
Second  and  Third  John  ;  but  it  is  clear  that 
Hebrew^s  Avas  not  part  of  the  Canon  of  the 
African  Church  which  he  represented.  The 
eloquent  w^ords  in  which  he  descants  upon  the 
wide  spread  of  Christianity  through  the  Roman 
Empire  have  been  already  quoted.^ 

Irena3us  was  a  man  of  many  lands,  and  his 
writings,  though  originally  in  Greek,  come  to  us  in 
an  old  Latin  translation,  save  the  passages  which 
have  been  quoted  by  later  writers  ;  Tertullian  is 
a  Latin  writer,  quoting  the  old  Latin  New^ 
Testament  of  which  w-e  have  spoken  ;  but  the 
next  we  have  to  name  is  a  Greek  philosopher, 
teacher,  and  Christian.  Clement  of  Alexandria 
has  one  of  the  noblest  names  in  Christian  history. 
Full  of  learning,  generous  by  disposition,  repre- 
senting fully  the  eclectic  tendencies  of  the  great 
commercial  city  in  which  he  lived  and  laboured, 
he  is  an  admirable  type  of  a  devout  and  learned 
Christian.  He  is  so  generous  in  his  estimate  of 
the  good  that  lurks  in  many  things  alien  from 
his  own  position,  that  we  find  him  not  only  trying 

^  See  before,  p.  5  i, 
L 


162  THIRD  CENTURY.  [Lect.  v. 

to  show  what  good  there  is  in  a  true  Gnosis — 
a  Gnosis  (knowledge,  as  he  explains)  which  is 
drawn  from  the  truth  proved  by  the  Scriptures 
themselves,  but  we  find  him  also  ascribing 
prophetic  inspiration  to  the  strange  Sibylline 
oracles  ;  commenting  on  Barnabas  and  the 
Apocalypse  of  Peter  ;  and  quoting  freely  (but 
by  way  of  illustration)  from  many  apocryphal 
books.  But  although  his  generous  mind  and  his 
training  as  an  eclectic,  and  a  literary  man  of 
w4de  reading,  made  Clement  thus  admit  the  claims 
on  his  attention  made  by  all  those  books,  it  does 
not  appear  that  he  set  any  of  them — not  even 
the  Sibyl — on  the  platform  of  Holy  Scripture. 
And  the  books  of  '^ur  New  Testament  were  his 
New  Testament  Scripture,  save  that  we  find  no 
mention  of  James,  Second  Peter,  and  Third  John. 
His  principle  was  that,  while  all  Christians  have 
the  gift  and  grace  of  God's  Holy  Spirit,  the 
apostles  had  the  Spirit  in  complete  measure  ;^  so 
that  his  Pule  of  Faith  is  found  in  the  agreement 
of  the  Church,  and  the  apostles,  and  the  prophets. 
In  the  case  of  Clement,  we  have  first  to  distinguish 
the  literary  man  from  the  theologian,  and  then, 
even  in  estimating  the  testimony  of  the  theologian 
to  our  Scriptures,  we  have  to  remember  that  he 
did  not  write  with  a  critical  but  with  a  practical 
object  in  vicAV. 

^  See  footnote,  p.  94. 


Lect.  v.]  clement  of  ALEXANDRIA.  163 

The  third  century  of  our  era  has  some  great 
names^  as  Hippolytus,  Caius,  Dionysius,  Cyprian, 
but  none  so  great  as  the  name  of  Origen,  who 
followed  Clement  as  head  of  the  catechetical  school 
of  Alexandria.  By  this  time  Christendom  had 
come  to  practical  agreement  upon  the  new  volume 
of  the  Scriptures ;  and  while  some  books  were  only 
accepted  in  some  places,  more  than  twenty  of  them 
were  universallv  acknowledg:ed.  But  Orio^en  intro- 
duced  biblical  criticism,  strictly  so  called,  into  the 
field.  He  dealt  with  the  Greek  versions  of  the 
Old  Testament  in  a  thoroughly  critical  way, 
arranging  all  of  them  in  parallel  columns,  so  that 
the  Septuagint  and  its  rivals  (the  versions  of 
Aquila,  Symmachus,  and  Theodotion)  might  be 
easily  compared  at  a  glance.  What  he  arranged 
was,  moreover,  a  critical  text ;  and  his  marks  and 
symbols,  designed  to  show  the  value  of  particular 
readings,  are  still  intelligible  as  a  proof  of  the 
thoroughness  and  patience  of  the  great  critic  of  the 
third  century.  This  invaluable  work  was  lost,^  and 
the  same  fate  has  befallen  most  of  the  five  thousand 
volumes  of  notes,  commentaries,  and  homilies  which 
the  indefatigable  scholar  wrote.     He  '  wrote  more 

1  It  was  preserved  ia  the  library  at  Csesarea.  Jerome  saw  it  there. 
It  was  there  in  the  sixth  century,  but  it  perished  with  the  library  in 
some  siege.  What  remains  are  transcripts  of  the  principal  readings  in 
the  column  containing  the  Septuagint — transcripts  originally  suggested, 
and  enriched  with  marginal  notes,  by  Eusebius  and  Pamphilus. 
See  Dr.  Field's  Prolegomena  to  his  splendid  edition,  especially  pp. 
xcix.-ci. 


164  THIRD  CENTURY.  [Lect.  v. 

than  any  other  man  can  read/  says  the  next 
greatest  critic  in  Christian  history.  The  ghmpse 
we  have  into  his  work  in  a  passage  of  Eusebius' 
Church  History  (vi.  23)  gives  an  idea  of  his  enor- 
mous labour.  '  He  had  more  than  seven  shorthand 
writers  to  whom  he  dictated,  who  relieved  each 
other  at  appointed  times ;  he  had  as  many  book- 
writers,  and  along  with  them  girls,  skilled  in 
beautiful  penmanship.'  For  all  this  staff  Origen 
himself  had  no  means  of  providing,  but  the  inex- 
pressible zeal  of  his  friend  Ambrosius  supplied  it 
all  abundantly,  and  gratitude  to  Ambrosius  stimu- 
lated the  superhuman  toil  of  the  patient  scholar 
who  calls  his  rich  friend  his  taskmaster.^  At  an 
early  period  of  his  life  Origen  gave  up  his  own 
patrimony  and  sold  his  library  that  he  might  be 
without  care  for  the  things  of  this  world  ;  but  care 
pursues  the  footsore  pedestrian  as  well  as  the 
mounted  man,  and  Origen's  life  was  one  of  priva- 
tion, was  indeed  in  the  end  worn  out  by  destitution 
and  trouble  after  the  death  of  Ambrosius.  This  is 
not  the  place  to  tell  the  romantic  story  of  his 
devoted  life ;  but  the  troubles  he  brought  upon 
himself  that  he  might  be  a  true  disciple  of  Jesus, 
are  the  guarantee  of  his  single-mindedness  and 
truthfulness,  with  which  we  are  much  concerned. 

When  we   try  to   sum  up  the   opinions  of  this 
great    scholar,    we    find    from    his    extant   Greek 

1  ipy^Oiu^crngj  Origen  in  Johan.  T.  v. 


Lect.  v.]  ORIGEN.  165 

works,  and  Eusebius'  extracts,  that  he  accepted  as 
Scripture  the  four  Gospels,  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  thirteen  Epistles  of  Paul,  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews,  whether  Paul's  or  not.  First  Peter, 
First  John,  and  the  Apocalypse.  He  mentions 
Second  Peter,  and  Second  and  Third  John,  but  says 
that  they  are  of  disputed  genuineness.  In  the 
Latin  translation  of  his  Homilies  we  see  that  he 
speaks  of  Second  Peter  and  '  the  Epistles '  of  John 
as  parts  of  the  New  Testament ;  and  that  he  gives 
the  same  rank  to  James  and  Jude.  In  one  place 
he  speaks  of  James  and  Jude  as  servants  of  God 
digging  wells  of  salvation  ;  in  another  he  speaks 
of  James  and  Jude  and  Peter  (in  two  Epistles)  as 
sounding  the  gospel  trumpets  under  the  new  and 
greater  Joshua,  of  whose  conquering  hosts  they  are 
the  priests,  whose  blasts  bring  down  the  Jericho  of 
heathenism  and  false  philosophy.^ 

Eusebius,^  who  knew  the  worth  of  Orio-en's 
testimony,  says  : 

'  In  the  first  book  of  his  Commentaries  on  Matthew,  observing 
the  ecclesiastical  Canon,  he  testifies  that  he  knows  only  fonr 
Gospels,  saying  thus  :  What  I  have  learned  from  tradition  re- 
garding the  four  Gospels,  which  alone  have  no  word  said  against 
them  in  the  Church  of  God,  which  is  under  heaven,  is  to  the  effect 
that  the  first  written  was  that  according  to  Matthew,  once  a 
publican,  afterwards  an  apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  that  he 
published  it  for  Jews  which  believed,  and  that  it  was  written  in 
the  Hebrew  tongue ;  the  second  was  that  according  to  Mark,  who 

1  See  Homilies  on  Gen.  xiii.  2  ;  Josh.  vii.  2  ;   Canonic  it  i/,  pp.  51,  52. 

2  Euseb.  H.  E.  vi.  25 ;  Canonicity,  p.  8. 


166  THIRD  CENTURY.  [Lect.  v. 

made  it  according  to  Peter's  recital,  and  of  whom  Peter  speaks  as 
his  son  in  his  Catholic  Epistle,  saying,  "  The  elect  lady  which  is 
in  Babylon  salutes  you,  as  also  does  Marcus  my  son ; "  the  third 
was  the  Gospel  commended  by  St.  Paul,  viz.  that  according  to 
Luke,  who  wrote  for  Gentile  converts ;  and  last  of  all,  the  Gospel 
according  to  John.' 

Origen  here  not  only  testifies  to  the  apostoHc 
sanction  given  to  the  Gospels  of  Mark  and  Luke, 
but  he  seems  to  speak  of  the  Gospels  as  composed 
in  the  order  in  which  they  now  stand. 

On  the  Epistles  he  says  :  '  Paul,  who  was  fitted  to  be  the  minister 
of  the  new  covenant,  not  of  the  letter  but  of  the  spirit,  w^ho  fulfilled 
the  gospel  from  Jerusalem  and  round  about  unto  Illyricum,  did 
not  write  unto  all  the  churches  which  he  taught,  and  sent  only  a 
few  hnes  to  those  to  which  he  did  write.  And  Peter,  on  whom 
is  built  the  Church  of  Christ,  against  which  the  gates  of  Hades 
shall  not  prevail,  has  left  one  Epistle  acknowledged  to  be  his. 
Let  there  be  reckoned  also  a  Second,  but  it  is  disputed.  What 
shall  I  say  of  him  who  laid  back  his  head  upon  the  breast  of 
Jesus,  who  has  left  one  Gospel,  avowing  that  he  could  write  so 
many  that  the  world  should  not  be  able  to  contain  them  ?  He 
wrote  the  Apocalypse  also,  having  been  ordered  to  keep  silence 
and  not  to  write  the  voices  of  the  seven  thunders.  He  has  left 
also  an  Epistle  of  very  few  lines.  Let  there  be  reckoned  also  a 
Second  and  a  Third,  since  all  do  not  admit  them  to  be  genuine. 
But  both  of  them  do  not  contain  more  than  a  hundred  lines.' 

We  may  conclude  our  historical  survey  with  a 
quotation  from  the  man  to  whom  more  than  to  any 
other,  or,  indeed,  than  to  all  others  put  together, 
we  owe  our  knowledge  of  the  first  three  hundred 
years  of  Christian  history.  Eusebius  was  born 
about  A.D.  260,  and  died,  full  of  years  and  honours, 
after  a  life  of  great  industry,  in  a.d.  339.  He  w^as 
the  friend  and  trusted  counsellor  of  Constantine 


Lect.  v.]  EUSEBIUS.  167 

the  Great ;  to  him  we  probably  owe  the  Sinaitic 
MS.  recently  discovered,  as  it  seems  to  have  been 
one  of  the  fifty  he  was  directed  by  his  imperial 
friend  to  prepare  for  the  use  of  the  churches  in 
Constantinople  ;  and  to  him  above  all  we  owe 
(among  many  other  works)  the  History  of  the 
Church  from  the  earliest  days  to  his  own,  in  which 
all  the  writings  of  all  the  worthies  are  described, 
and  in  which  as  quotation  or  description  we  find  all 
we  know  of  some  of  the  most  important  products 
of  Christian  thought.  It  was  his  custom  to  collect 
with  special  care  whatever  any  one  had  said  about 
the  disputed  books  of  the  New  Testament,  and 
about  such  extra  -  canonical  books  as  those  of 
Barnabas  and  Clement,  which  bulked  most  largely 
in  the  estimation  of  Christians.  He  did  not  con- 
cern himself  with  the  ancient  testimonies  to  books 
which  no  one  disputed.  This  ^  silence  of  Eusebius  ' 
has  been  often  misunderstood,  as  though  some 
ancient  worthy  did  not  use  a  book — say  a  gospel — 
when  Eusebius  does  not  say  that  he  did ;  but  the 
foremost  English  scholar  of  our  day  has  made  it  for 
ever  clear  that  Eusebius  of  set  purpose  did  not  en- 
cumber his  narrative  with  superfluous  testimonies 
to  books,  the  canonical  place  and  authority  ^  of 
which  nobody  disputed.     Eusebius  says^  : — 

1  Bishop    Lightfoot   on    'The   Silence  of    Eusebius,'    Contemporary 
Review  (1875,  p.  169). 

■^  H.  E.  iii.  25  ;  see  the  text,  with  notes,  in  Canonicity,  p.  10. 


168  FOURTH  CENTURY.  [Lect.  v. 

'  Having  come  thus  far  it  is  proper  to  sum  up  the  testimonies 
which  have  been  adduced  to  the  Scriptures  of  the  New  Testament. 
First  of  all,  then,  must  be  placed  the  holy  quartette  of  the  Gospels, 
which  are  followed  by  the  writing  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 
After  it  are  to  be  ranked  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  followed  in  due  order 
by  the  First  Epistle  circulated  under  John's  name,  and  likewise  also 
is  to  be  approved  the  Epistle  of  Peter.  Next  to  those  are  to  be 
arranged,  if  you  see  good,  the  Apocalypse  of  John,  my  opinions  con- 
cerning which  we  shall  set  forth  in  due  time.  These,  then,  are  to 
be  set  down  as  accepted  (Ilomologoumena).  Further,  to  the  class  of 
writings  disputed,  but  familiar  to  the  majority  of  people,  belong  the 
Epistle  circulated  in  the  name  of  James,  and  that  of  Jude,  and  the 
Second  of  Peter,  and  the  Second  and  Third  with  the  name  of  John, 
whether  they  really  belong  to  the  Evangehst  or  to  another  John. 
As  a  class  of  spurious  books,  let  there  be  reckoned  the  writing  of 
the  Acts  of  Paul,  and  that  which  is  called  The  Shepherd  (Hernias), 
and  the  Apocalypse  of  Peter,  and  with  them  the  book  current  as 
the  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  and  the  so-called  Doctrines  of  the  Apostles ; 
and  also,  as  I  said  before,  the  Apocalypse  of  John,  if  you  think 
fit ;  for  this  is  a  writing  which,  as  I  said,  some  reject  but  others 
adjudge  to  the  class  of  accepted  books.  There  are  likewise  some 
who  have  referred  to  this  class  the  Gqspel  according  to  the 
Hebrews,  in  which  those  Hebrews  who  have  accepted  Christ  take 
special  delight.  All  of  those  may  perhaps  be  counted  among 
disputed  books.  It  is  from  necessity  that  we  have  made  a  detailed 
catalogue  of  such  books,  distinguishing  those  which,  according  to 
ecclesiastical  tradition,  are  true  and  unforged,  and  fully  accepted, 
from  those  others  alongside  of  them  which  are  not  in  the  covenant, 
but  are  disputed,  and  yet  known  by  most  people  of  the  Church,  so 
that  we  may  have  good  grounds  for  knowing  those  others  also 
which,  being  put  forward  by  heretics  under  the  names  of  apostles, 
as  though  they  were  Gospels  of  Peter  and  Thomas  and  Matthias, 
or  as  containing  acts  of  some  of  the  rest, — of  Andrew,  for  example, 
or  of  John,  and  of  the  other  apostles, — nothing  of  which  has  been 
ever  thought  worth  mentioning  in  his  writings  by  a  single  man  in 
the  succession  of  ecclesiastics.  Moreover,  the  style  of  expression 
(in  them)  is  somehow  quite  different  from  the  apostolic  usage,  and 
the  thought  and  plan  of  the  things  brought  forward  in  them,  as 
alien  as  it  is  possible  to  be  from  true  orthodoxy,  clearly  betoken 


Lect.  v.]  EUSEBIUS.  169 

that  we  are  dealing  with  the  fabrications  of  heretical  men. 
Wherefore  let  such  writings  be  not  put  down  even  among  the 
spurious,  but  let  them  be  cast  aside  as  altogether  worthless  and 
impioKs.' 

The  opinions  of  his  age  are  collected  by  Eusebius 
in  this  passage,  and  from  it  we  see  that  the  greatest 
part  of  the  New  Testament  was  accepted  without 
dispute  throughout  Christendom.  We  see  that 
there  were  other  books  accepted  by  most,  but  not 
with  the  same  heartiness  by  all;  and  the  notes 
we  have  made  on  earlier  lists  have  prepared  us 
to  learn  what  those  books  were.  They  are 
James  and  Jude,  Second  Peter,  and  Second  and 
Third  John.  Some  add  the  Apocalypse  of 
John.  All  these  books,  save  James,  were 
wanting  in  the  ,  New  Testament  of  the  Syriac 
Church,  which,  being  the  earliest  collection  of 
Christian  Scripture  for  the  East,  had  great  in- 
fluence on  the  views  of  all  the  Oriental  Churches, 
for  which  Eusebius  was  specially  qualified  to  speak. 
When  we  turn  to  the  Western  or  Latin  Church, 
we  find  that  James  was  probably  omitted  in  the 
old  Italic  collection  current  in  Africa,  and  that 
Second  Peter  certainly  was.  What  Eusebius, 
therefore,  tells  us  with  his  usual  candid  truthfulness 
is  what  we  should  have  known  from  those  other 
sources  ;  and  it  may  be  regarded  as  established 
beyond  dispute. 

Let  us  now  inquire  whether  there  be  anything 
in  those  books  already  named  as  among  the  Anti- 


170  SUMMARY.  [Lect.  V 

legomena  of  Eusebius  which  accounts  for  their  lack 
of  universal  recognition.  It  need  not  surprise  us 
that  the  two  short  letters  of  John  were  omitted 
in  many  collections.  They  are  short,  they  are 
personal  ;  and  except  that  they  were  believed  to 
come  from  the  Great  Apostle,  they  would  not  have 
bulked  largely  in  the  estimation  of  the  Church. 
The  Epistle  of  James  is  in  another  position.  It 
was  accepted  in  the  Eastern  Church  from  the  first. 
It  is  not  found  in  the  Muratorian  Canon,  or  in  the 
majority  of  the  mss.  of  the  old  Latin.  Irenaeus' 
quotations  may  be  drawn  from  Paul,  not  from 
James.  Not  until  the  beo^inninof  of  the  third 
century  gives  us  the  testimony  of  Hippolytus  (an 
Italian  bishop),  are  we  sure  of  its  being  in  the 
Bible  of  the  Latin  Church.  James  wrote  to  the 
Jews  of  the  dispersion  ;  and  as  they  were  found  in 
the  East  rather  than  in  the  West  (he  himself  never 
left  Jerusalem),  the  first  circulation  and  the  chief 
popularity  of  this  letter  were  in  the  East.  The 
Jews  were  not  so  numerous  in  the  cities  of 
Europe  (Kome  excepted),  and  this  Epistle  was 
not  therefore  so  important  in  the  western  regions 
of  the  Church.  Those  European  churches,  too, 
were  essentially  Pauline  ;  and  the  doctrine  of 
James,  who  was  not  personally  known  as  Paul 
and  Peter  were  in  the  West,  has  always  at  first 
sight  been  a  difficulty  to  those  whose  faith  is 
sustained  from  the  truth  as  Paul  teaches  it.     Thus 


Lect.  v.]  the  disputed  BOOKS.  1*71 

we  can  see  how  the  Epistle  was  slow  in  winning 
its  place  ;  and  we'infer  that  overwhelming  evidence 
of  its  genuineness  must  have  been  on  its  side,  or  it 
w^ould  never  have  overcome  the  barriers  in  its 
way. 

The  cases  of  Second  Peter  and  Jude  are  so 
similar  as  to  require  being  considered  together. 
It  is  not  possible  to  resist  the  conviction  that 
the  author  of  the  one  Epistle  took  some  verses 
from  the  other  ;  and  as  Jude  is  the  more  dis- 
tinct and  explicit,  it  seems  on  the  whole  probable 
that  his  Epistle  was  the  earlier.  Both  seem  to 
have  been  written  to  Jews,  and  before  the  fall  of 
Jerusalem  ;  for  both  are  full  of  Hebrew  memories, 
and  in  neither  is  there  any  allusion  to  the  ruin  of 
the  Holy  City.  Paul  was  still  living  when  Peter 
wrote.  Apostles  had  personally  spoken  to  those 
whom  Jude  addressed.  Both  those  Epistles  seem 
to  have  drifted  away  into  nooks  and  corners  among 
the  Jewish  Christian  people,  and  it  w^as  long  ere 
either  of  them  had  universal  recognition.  Yet 
they  were  known  to  many.  Tertullian  calls  Jude 
an  apostle,  though  he  himself  does  not  claim  that 
honoured  rank.  Origen  also  does  so.  Clement  of 
Alexandria  commented  on  the  Second  Epistle  of 
Peter,  and  Irenseus,  and  even  Justin  Martyr,  used 
it.  There  is  thus  early  testimony  in  favour  of  both 
letters.  On  the  whole,  although  of  all  the  books  of 
our  New  Testament  Canon  those  two  Epistles  are 


172  SUMMARY.  [Lect.  v 

least  supported  bj  external  testimony,  and  although, 
their  obscurity  has  mihtated  against  their  reception, 
they  were  eventually  accepted  by  the  Church  of 
Christ,  because  they  were  believed  to  come  from 
apostles.  The  date  at  which  they  appeared  Avas 
before  Gnosticism  had  much  hold  of  the  Jewish 
Christian,  but  after  lawlessness  —  Antinomianism 
in  personal  life — was  prevalent. 

The  history  of  the  acceptance  of  the  Apocalypse 
is  unlike  that  which  belongs  to  any  other  book. 
It  has  had  vicissitudes  ;  it  has  been  the  most 
popular  and  the  most  unpopular  of  books,  and  this 
too  by  turns,  for  it  has  been  more  than  once  at 
each  extreme.  The  early  Church,  expecting  an 
immediate  return  of  the  Lord,  believed  that  it 
found  an  announcement  of  the  fact  in  the  Apoca- 
lypse, though  it  seems  to  us  strange  that  such  an 
idea  could  prevail,  or  that  all  the  woes  and  experi- 
ences could  be  supposed  to  be  crowded  into  a  few 
years.  Papias  quoted  the  book  with  no  misgivings, 
and  Justin  Martyr  quotes  it  by  name,  though  he 
does  not  so  quote  any  other  book  of  the  New 
Testament.  We  read  that  in  a  work  now  lost  he 
expounded  it  ;  and  the  same  is  true  of  Irenseus. 
Origen  and  Hippolytus  honoured  it  as  coming  from 
the  Apostle  John,  and  up  till  that  time  (the  third 
century)  it  stood  high  everywhere, — alike  in  the 
East  and  in  the  West, — save  that,  for  some  reason 
which  we    do    not    understand,    it    is    absent    from 


Lect.  v.]  the  disputed  BOOKS.  173 

the  Syriac  New  Testament.  But  in  the  third 
century,  as  men  began  to  despair  of  the  speedy 
coming  of  the  King,  they  began  also  to  disparage 
the  book  on  which  many  of  the  Millenarians  had 
professed  to  base  their  expectations.  Papias  had 
given  special  umbrage  by  his  grotesque  illustra- 
tions and  traditions  on  the  subject  of  the  personal 
reign  of  Christ  upon  earth ;  and,  in  the  recoil  from 
those  exaggerations,  prudent  men  went  so  far  as  to 
deny  that  the  Apostle  John  could  have  been  the 
authority  to  which  (however  falsely)  the  Millen- 
arians betook  themselves  for  their  w^arrant.  So 
one  eminent  Roman  presbyter  (Caius)  ascribed  the 
book,  not  to  John,  but  to  Cerinthus,  John's  great 
adversary  ;  and  an  Alexandrian  scholar  (Dionysius) 
composed  with  great  acumen  an  elaborate  argument 
to  prove  from  the  style  that  the  apostle  who 
wrote  the  fourth  Gospel  could  not  have  written  the 
Apocalypse.  Eusebius,  who  was  cold  though  candid, 
had  a  great  horror  of  Millenarianism,  and  loses  no 
opportunity  of  disparaging  those  who  favoured  the 
Apocalypse,  or  of  hinting  that  the  book  itself 
might  be  thrown  aside  altogether.  In  the  Eastern 
Church  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  kept  up  this  dubiety  ; 
in  the  Western  Church  Jerome's  authority  caused 
it  to  pass  away,  and  brought  the  Apocalypse  into 
high  esteem.  At  the  Keformation  the  hints  of 
Erasmus  were  carried  to  all  lengths  by  Luther  and 
Zwingli,  who  tossed  the  book  away.     Calvin  was 


174  '        SUxMMARY.  [Lect.  V. 

more  prudent,  alike  in  the  fact  of  his  using  the 
book  and  in  that  of  not  venturing  to  write  a  com- 
mentary upon  it.  Its  want  of  definite  doctrine, 
though  its  practical  religious  teaching  is  as  clear  as 
its  predictions  are  obscure,  caused  those  reformers 
to  lay  little  stress  upon  a  book  which  told  nothing  of 
justification  by  faith,  that  ^  article  of  a  standing  or 
a  falling  church.'  But  in  the  next  century,  when 
it  was  not  for  doctrines  but  for  church  systems  that 
men  fought,  when  Bossuet  saw  in  it  the  prediction 
of  the  sins  of  Protestantism,  and  Yitringa  found  the 
iniquities  of  Popery,  both  Protestants  and  Boman 
Catholics  honoured  the  book  wdth  eager  deference. 
In  our  own  day  it  has  the  curious  fate  of  being  the 
most  prized  book  in  the  scanty  Canon  of  the 
Tiibingen  school,  who  see  in  it  a  weapon  against 
the  fourth  Gospel,  and  of  being  looked  at  askance 
by  many  good  Christians,  who  are  repelled  by  the 
mystery  of  its  many  symbols.  Other  good  Chris- 
tians, on  the  other  hand,  find  in  its  opening  and 
closing  chapters  a  richer  feast  of  holy  hope  than 
anywhere  else  in  the  New  Testament ;  and 
many  who  are  burdened  with  the  woes  of  the 
body  of  Christ  in  an  unbelieving  world,  find — as 
did  Ezekiel  among  the  captive  Hebrews  —  a 
strong  consolation  in  the  vision  of  the  new 
Jerusalem,  the  holy  city,  which  God  will  establish 
among  men. 

We    see    in    this    history   how    doctrinal   views 


Lect.  v.]  THE   DISPUTED   BOOKS.  175 

have  contributed  to  the  favour  or  the  dislike  with 
which  a  book  may  be  regarded. 

There    is    another    book    of    the    Canon,    from 
studying   the    history   of  which  we    may  learn   a 
different  lesson.     The  Epistle   to  the  Hebrews  has 
never   from   the  very   first    been    doubted   in   the 
Eastern  Church ;   but  it  was  three  hundred  years 
and  more  before  it  was  generally  accepted  in  the 
West,  although  it  was  in  the   Old   Latin   Canon 
before    Tertullian's    time.       The    cause     of    this 
acceptance  in  the  East  and  lack  of  acceptance  in 
the  West  is  its  being  addressed  to  Alexandrian  Jews, 
who  regarded  it  as  Paul's ;  while  in  other  parts  of 
the  Church,  to  which  it  came  somewhat  later,  the 
want  of  distinct  proof  of  Pauline  authorship  caused 
its  canonical  position  to  be  doubted.      There  was 
also  against  it  in  the  orthodox  West  its  apparent 
countenance     (vi.     4,     8)     to     the    views    of    the 
Montanists,    who     maintained     that    the     lapsed 
should   never   be   restored   to    church    privileges.^ 
But   in   the    East   it  was   believed   to  be  Paul's, 
and  as   such  was  accepted.      Some  thought  that 
Clement    of    Rome    translated     it     from    Paul's 
Hebrew, — some    that   Luke    did   this    service    for 
Paul, — but  that  it  was  Paul's  they  were  sure.     Of 
this    Clement  of  Alexandria  is  undoubted   proof 
In  the  AVest  the  Muratorian  Canon  seems  to  refer 
to    it    as    a   forgery.       Hippolytus    and    Irenaeus 

^  This  seems  to  have  been  Caius'  reason.     See  Canonicity,  p.  279,  note. 


176  SUMMARY.  [Lect.  v. 

deny  that  it  was  Paul's.  Tertullian  ascribed  its 
composition  to  Barnabas  ;  but  he  at  the  same 
time  takes  care  to  say  that  Barnabas  was  a 
man  sufficiently  accredited  of  God.  Thus  in  the 
"West  it  was  not  universally  accepted,  because 
Paul  was  not  recognised  as  the  author  ;  while 
in  the  East,  there  being  little  or  no  doubt  of 
the  Pauline  authorship, — though  there  were  many 
guesses  as  to  the  translator  or  amanuensis, — there 
was  no  difficulty  in  accepting  it.  Origen  under- 
takes to  prove  that  it  is  Paul's,  though  elsewhere 
he  admits  that  there  are  such  peculiarities  of  style 
as  to  make  him  think  that  Clement  or  Luke  may 
have  been  the  actual  penman  of  Paul's  thoughts 
in  it. 

Thus  ive  find  a  principle  that  the  proof  of 
apostolic  authorship  led  to  acceptance  of  a  hook 
as  authoritative.  But  this  we  must  reserve  for 
next  lecture. 


177 


NOTE  ON  THE  DISCOVERY  OF  TATIAN'S 
'  DIATESSARON.' 

In  tlie  second  volume  of  the  Armenian  edition  of  the  works  of 
Ephrem  Syrus,  is  a  book  inscribed,  'An  Exposition  of  the  Con- 
cordant Gospel  made  by  S.  Ephrem,  Syrian  Doctor.'  The 
Armenian  text  dates  from  a.d.  1105  (there  are  two  mss.  of  it), 
and  is  a  very  literal  translation  from  the  Syriac— so  literal,  indeed, 
that  many  Syriac  constructions  remain  in  the  Armenian.  This 
was  rendered  into  very  literal  Latin  by  Father  Aucher  in  1841, 
and  revised  and  compared  with  the  original  Armenian  ms.  by 
Professor  Moesinger  of  Salzburg,  in  1876.  The  interest  which 
attaches  to  this  ancient  document  arises  from  its  possibly  being 
a  translation  of  a  Commentary  by  Ephrem  Syrus  on  the  Diafessaron 
of  Tatian.  That  Tatian  wrote  a  book  which  was  a  blending  of 
the  four  Gospels,  may  be  regarded  as  amply  estabhshed.  There 
is  Syrian  testimony  establishing  the  fact  of  Ephrem  expounding 
or  explaining  Tatian's  work.  The  questions,  therefore,  are — (1) 
Can  the  commentary  or  exposition  thus  recovered  through  the 
Armenian  be  rightly  ascribed  to  Ephrem  ?  (2)  Can  the  woi-k 
commented  on  be  identified  with  Tatian's  Harmony  ? 

The  answer  to  (1)  the  first  question  is  partly  founded  on  many 
minute  points,  which,  when  viewed  together,  furnish  a  cogent 
argument.  Even  in  the  Armenian  the  style  is  like  that  of  Ephrem  ; 
the  mode  of  commenting  is  the  same  as  that  which  he  follows  when 
dealing  with  the  Old  Testament,  i.e.  the  notes  are  usually  terse 
and  helpful,  attached  to  obscure  or  difficult  expressions,  but 
souietimes  (as,  e.g.,  in  regard  to  the  birth  of  John  Baptist,  or  the 
woman  with  the  issue  of  blood)  tliey  are  disproportionately  diffuse ; 
the  references  to  contemporary  events  (as  when  the  expositor,  in  a 
prayer  appended  to  the  Exposition,  speaks  of  his  Church  being 
robbed  of  its  pastor)  agree  with  what  is  known  of  Ephrem's  time; 
the  incessant  and  vigorous  thrusts  at  the  Marcionites  are  charac- 
teristic of  Ephrem  ;  and  some  pecuhar  views  of  his  regarding  Old 
Testament  incidents  appear  from  time  to  time  in  this  Commentary. 
There  are  other  considerations  which  it  needs  no  expert  to  judge. 
Dionysius    Barsalibi    (a    Mesopotamian,    a.d.    1171)   says   that 

M 


178  NOTE  ON  TATIAN. 

Tatiau's  Harmony  began  with  the  words  (from  John's  Gospel), 
'  In  the  beginning  wan  the  Word.'  This  we  find  to  be  the  case  in 
the  text  of  the  Commentary  before  us.  It  is  said  to  have  been  a 
uoificatiou  of  the  Gospels  ;  it  was  not  a  Harmony  in  the  sense  of 
a  comparison  or  collocation  of  passages ;  and  we  find  that  our 
text  passes  from  the  opening  words  of  John's  Gospel  (John  i.  1,  5, 
but  vers.  10,  14,  17  are  also  quoted)  to  Luke  i.  5  :  '  There  was  in 
the  days  of  Herod  the  king,'  etc.,  giving  an  account  of  the  nativity 
of  the  Baptist.  After  notes  on  the  leading  verses  of  Luke  i.,  the 
Exposition  proceeds  to  remark  upon  the  betrothal  of  Joseph  and 
Mary,  in  Matt.  i.  18,  '2d.  Then  follow  the  Magi,  the  mission  of 
the  Jews  to  John  (John  i.  19-28),  etc.  And  so  the  expositor 
goes  on  ;  evidently  with  a  text  before  him  which  is  woven  together 
from  the  four  Gospels,  and  on  what  seem  to  him  the  salient  points 
of  it  he  makes  remarks  sometimes  critical,  sometimes  practical. 
On  the  whole,  the  Exposition  does  not  seem  to  have  been  designed 
for  a  congregation,  but  it  quite  suggests  the  idea  of  its  being  notes 
of  lectures  to  students  of  theology.  There  was  a  theological  school 
in  Edessa  to  the  pupils  in  which  Ephrem  may  have  addressed  his 
remarks.  The  occasional  references  to  '  the  Greek '  are  intelligible 
when  this  is  kept  in  mind.  Ephrem  was  not  usually  a  preacher ; 
he  was  only  in  deacon's  orders ;  but  he  was  a  teacher  and  a  theo- 
logian. On  the  whole,  everything  points  to  this  being  the  work  of 
the  gr^at  Syrian  father,  to  whom  an  unswerving  tradition  ascribes 
the  composition  of  such  a  work. 

(2)  The  second  question — on  the  identification  of  the  work  with 
Tatia-n's  Harmony — also  admits  of  an  affirmative  answer.  First 
of  all,  there  is  no  mention  of  any  other  work  of  the  same  kind  in 
antiquity.  The  Harmony  of  Ammonius  was  quite  different,  being 
merely  the  Gospel  of  Matthew,  with  the  parallel  paragraphs  from 
the  other  Gospels  placed  alongside,  or  indicated  by  an  ingenious 
system  of  descriptive  marks,  as  explained  by  Eusebius  in  his  letter 
to  Carpian.  Tatian's  work  was  not  such  a  collocation ;  it  was 
the  '  making  of  one  from  four;'  and  what  Ephrem  comments  upon 
was  such  a  unification  of  our  four  Gospels.  As  we  have  seen, 
Tatian's  work  began  with  John's  prologue,  and  omitted  the 
genealogies.  So  does  this  ;  and  the  case  appears  to  be  made  out. 
There  is,  however,  one  difficulty.  Theodoret  (about  a.d.  450), 
who  found  200  copies  of  Tatian's  Harmony  in  his  diocese,  and 
believing  them  to  be  heretical,  put  them  away,  says  that  Tatiau 
cut  away  the  genealogies  and  all  references  in  our  Gospels  to 


NOTE  ON  TATIAX.  1*79 

Christ  being  of  (he  seed  of  David  accordinf;;  to  the  flesh.  We 
find  in  the  work  on  which  Ephrem  comments  that  the  Wind  man  of 
Jericho  and  the  children  of  Jerusalem  do  call  upon  the  Son  of  David. 
This  makes  a  difficulty  which  it  is  impossible  to  overlook.  But 
(1)  Theodoret  probably  saw  that  at  the  outset  there  is  an  omission 
in  Matt.  i.  20,  of '  Joseph  the  son  of  David,'  and  a  curious  silence 
about  Bethlehem  (David's  city)  as  the  place  of  enrolment,  and 
hastily  assumed  that  the  other  references  to  the  Saviour's  descent 
from  David  were  also  omitted.  It  is  true  that  almost  at  the  outset 
(Moesinger,  p.  16)  the  commentator  remarks:  '  The  same  Scripture 
says  in  another  place  that  both  Joseph  and  Mary  were  of  the  house 
of  David,'  but  it  is  not  at  all  certain  that  he  found  this  in  the 
Harmony.  He  seems  to  have  been  using  his  own  knowledge  of  the 
Gospels  in  their  simple  form.  (2)  Theodoret  probably  did  not  read 
the  whole  book  carefully.  What  he  saw  on  the  first  page  was 
enough  to  satisfy  him  that  the  Harmony  was  dangerously  imperfect; 
and  he  may  have  rashly  announced  that  the  whole  work  was  like 
its  first  pages.  And  (3)  the  passages  where  the  blind  man  and  the 
multitude  call  upon  Jesus  as  David's  son  may  have  seemed  to 
Theodoret  to  indicate  the  opinion  of  the  multitude  only  ;  while  what 
he  desiderated  was  the  testimony  of  the  Evangelists  (as  in  the 
genealogies)  to  our  Lord's  Davidic  descent.  That  Theodoret 
thus  judged  is  rendered  probable  by  the  fact  that  Marcion  some- 
times distinguished  in  this  way  between  the  statement  of  the 
Evangelist  and  that  of  the  people.  For  example,  he  omitted  Luke 
viii.  19,  and  retained  v.  20. 

On  the  whole,  while  not  concealing  that  there  is  some  difficulty 
in  disposing  of  the  words  of  Theodoret,  the  book  now  in  our  hands 
may  be  accepted  as  the  long-lost  Commentary  of  Ephrem  on  the 
Harmony  of  Tatian.'  It  appears,  moreover,  that  Tatian  wrote  his 
Harmony  in  his  old  age,  when  he  had  left  Rome  after  dwelling 
there  for  many  years,  and  that  he  wrote  it  in  Syriac.  It  was  not 
originally  a  Greek  book  ;  and  as  its  circulation  was  mainly  in  the 
eastern  regions  of  the  Church,  its  existence  became  merely  a  rumour 
to  ecclesiastics  who  dwelt  in  Rome  or  in  Constantinople.  But 
until  the   fourth,  or   even   the   fifth,    century  it  was  a  popular 

^  The  Codex  Fuldensis,  which  we  owe  to  Victor  of  Capua,  seems  to  be 
Tatian's  Harmony  consideraWy  altered.  Luke's  preface  is  put  at  the  begin- 
ning, and  immediately  after  comes  John's  prologue.  The  codex  as  a  whole 
rests  upon  Tatian's  Harmony,  but  many  changes  are  made  to  adapt  the 
text  to  Jerome's  version. 


180  NOTE  ON  TATIAN. 

book  in  Eclessa  and  eastward.  That  200  copies  of  it  were  found 
in  one  diocese  amply  proves  this.  Zahn  has  made  it  probable  that 
Tatian  (born  a.d.  110;  lived  in  Rome  a.d.  155-173)  returned  to 
his  native  Mesopotamia  when  about  sixty  years  of  age,  and  then 
wrote  this  book,  which  made  him  dear  to  the  Syrian  Church. 

The  student  may  be  referred  to  Aucher — Moesinger's  Evangelii 
Concordanils  Expositio  facta  a  S.  Ephrcemo  doctore  Syro  (Yeuetiis, 
1876).  Xo  description  is  so  easily  understood  as  the  work  itself. 
With  it  may  be  compared  Ranke's  edition  of  the  Codex  Euldensis 
(Marburg  and  Leipzig,  1868).  The  whole  subject  is  exhaustively 
discussed  in  all  its  aspects  in  Zahn's  Forschungen  zur  Gcschichte 
des  N.  T.  Kanons^  1  Theil,  Tatian  s  Diatessaron^  1881.  The 
articles  of  Harnack  in  Brieger's  Zeitschrift  filr  KirGhevgescliichte. 
February  1881,  are  incisive  and  suggestive.  They  may  be  said  to 
have  awakened  the  attention  of  students  to  the  importance  of  the 
discovery,  though  Moesinger,  in  his  own  modest  preface,  makes 
his  opinion  very  clear.  English  readers  will  find  excellent  articles 
by  Professor  Wace  in  the  Expositor  for  1881  and  1882. 


LECTURE  VI. 

WHY  CHRISTENDOM  HAS  ASCRIBED  AUTHORITY  TO  THE 
CANONICAL  BOOKS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

Before  w^e  proceed  to  the  conclusion  of  our  short 
course,  ^ve  must  here  look  back  on  the  principles 
which  guided  Christendom  to  the  conclusions  at 
w^iich  it  arrived.  There  is  not  time  for  an 
adequate  examination,  but  w^e  may  indicate  w^hat 
it  is  not  possible  on  this  occasion  to  illustrate 
or  even  to  expound. 

The  first  utterances  on  the  subject  of  our  New^ 
Testament  books  speak  from  the  consciousness  of 
membership  of  a  living  Church,  which  had  Christ 
for  its  author  and  head.  Clement  of  Rome  (a.d.  90) 
is  expressing  the  mind  of  all  when  he  says,  as  a 
summary  of  all  duty  :  '  Especially  being  mindful 
of  the  w^ords  of  the  Lord  Jesus  which  He  spake ' 
(1  Clem.  chap.  xiii.).  Again  he  says,  wdien  he 
Welshes  to  make  men  strong  and  trustful  :  '  For 
God  liveth,  and  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  liveth,  and 
the  Holy  Spirit'  (1  Clem.  chap.  Iviii.  2).  So 
Polycarp  (a.d.  155  or  a.d.  166):  'Remembering 
those  things  which  the  Lord  said  in  His  teaching: 


182  RECOGNITION  OF  AUTHORITY.  [Lect.  vi. 

Judge  not^  that  ye  be  not  judged/  etc.  If 
the  early  Christians  spoke  of  the  apostles,  it 
was  as  witnesses  after  the  Master,  and  to  Him. 
*  Paul  was  a  herald,  and  gained  the  fitting 
{yevvalov)  renown  of  his  faith'  (Clem.  chap.  v.). 
Peter  was  a  '  witness '  unto  death.  On  that 
ground,  those  men,  and  the  other  apostles  in 
their  measure,  were  reverenced  as  the  messengers 
of  Christ.  It  was  because  they  had  a  message 
from  Christ,  and  the  witness  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
to  it,  that  they  were  authoritative  guides  of  the 
Church.  The  words  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  His 
thoughts,  and  His  work  were  the  ultimate  objects 
of  faith  and  striving.  Not  so  much  the  Gospels, 
as  the  truths  the  Gospels  contain,  were  the  burden 
of  the  speech  and  reasoning  of  those  *  Ep.  - 
Apostolic'  Christian  teachers. 

When  it  came  to  other  writings  than  the  Gospels, 
and  other  words  than  those  of  the  Master  Himself, 
the  value  attached  by  the  Christian  believers  to 
those  writings  sprang  from  the  conviction  that 
their  authors  were  commissioned  to  represent 
Christ.  Thus  Polycarp,  as  Ave  have  seen,  says  : 
'  For  neither  I,  nor  any  other  such,  can  come  up 
to  the  wisdom  of  the  blessed  and  glorified  Paul. 
He,  Avhen  among  you,  accurately  and  stedfastly 
taught  the  word  of  truth.'  It  was  out  of  the 
fulness  of  the  Church's  conscious  life  —  of  a  life 
consciously  received  in  the  word  of  Christ,   and 


Lect.  VI.]  FIRST  EECEPTION  OF  BOOKS.  183 

of  His  commissioned  apostles — that  the  believing 
membership  drew  the  purpose  of  hallowing  certain 
books  as  the  vessels  in  which  the  treasure  had 
come  to  them,  and  in  which  it  might  be  found  by 
others.  Christendom  was  formed  without  a  book. 
Christ  formed  it  by  making  a  personal  tie  with 
His  first  followers,  and  they  extended  it  by 
bringing  others  into  personal  relationship  with 
themselves,  and  throuofh  themselves  with  Him* 
There  was  a  truth  by  which  the  people  lived 
before  its  message  was  found  in  any  book,  but 
not  before  it  was  found  on  the  lips  of  a  man. 
Paul's  preaching  was  known  before  Paul's  letters 
were  written.  But  when  the  letters  appeared,  it 
was  because  they  were  Paul's  that  they  received 
welcome  and  deference.  No  other  assurance  than 
that  a  letter  was  his  seemed  to  be  necessary  in 
any  case.  So  '  weighty '  were  his  letters,  that  a 
forged  letter,  ^as  from  him,'  troubled  the  men  of 
Thessalonica. 

And  thus  the  Canon  of  the  New  Testament 
was  made  up  by  men  receiving  and  hallowing 
book  after  book  as  telling  of  Christ,  and  coming 
from  His  accredited  messengers.  The  Gospels  did 
not  need  an  author's  name  in  the  same  formal 
way  as  the  Epistles,  because  the  Gospels  were 
esteemed  for  what  they  contained  of  Christ's 
words  and  deeds  —  the  divine  oracles,  the  Xoyta 
from    which    the    Church    sprang.       With    those 


IS-i  RECOGNITION  OF  AUTHORITY.  [Lect.  vi. 

words  and  deeds  men  were  familiar,  owing  to  the 
much  preaching  of  apostles  and  other  eye-witnesses 
and  hearers  of  the  word ;  and  the  written  book 
was  valued  in  the  measure  of  its  containing  the 
familiar  facts  and  sayings.  Accordingly,  as 
apostles  taught  orally  everywhere  the  life  and 
work  of  Jesus  Christ,  there  naturally  arose  in 
many  places  short  written  accounts  of  the  sub- 
stance of  that  teaching,  epitomes  of  the  gospel, 
more  or  less  fragmentary,  but  serving  a  very 
useful  purpose  for  the  time.  It  was  to  such  as 
those  St.  Luke  referred  in  his  preface.  His 
verdict  on  them  is  only  that  they  were  frag- 
mentary and  inadequate.  He  claims  for  his  own 
that  it  is  a  complete  digest  of  what  they  gave 
partially.  His  Gospel,  therefore,  and  his  Book 
of  the  Acts,  contain  what  is  equivalent  to  an 
avowal  of  his  name,  and  an  appeal  to  his 
qualifications,  which  were  well  known  to  Theo- 
philus  and  to  the  Church.  The  other  Gospels 
contain  no  author's  name,  although  it  must  have 
been  so  well  known  at  first  as  to  prevent  all 
doubt  or  dispute.  The  Evangelists  were  divinely 
moved  to  do  the  work  they  did;  but  their  own 
personality  did  not  need  to  be  avowed.  They 
were  not  teachers,  like  the  writers  of  Epistles ; 
they  were  only  reporters  or  annalists.  It  was  the 
Lord  who  spake  in  His  own  Person.  The  author's 
name  was    no   integral   part    of  the   composition ; 


Lect.  VI.]  FIRST  RECEPTION  OF  BOOKS.  185 

men  knew  that  the  book  was  true  because  they 
recognised  the  truth  of  which  it  was  ML  But 
they  knew  also — the  earliest  testimonies  show  it 
— that  while  Matthew's  Gospel  and  John's  were 
by  apostles,  Mark's  came  with  the  authority  of 
an  epitome  of  Peter's  preaching,  and  Luke's  with 
a  similar  authority  from  Paul  '  Marcus,  my  son,' 
wrote  as  for  Peter  ;  '  Luke,  the  beloved  physician,' 
who  was  with  his  great  master  in  sorrow  and 
trial  unto  the  end,  committed  to  writing  a  com- 
pendium of  Christ's  gospel  such  as  Paul  nmst 
have  used ;  aud  thus,  whether  Paul  formally 
authorized  it  or  not,  Luke's  book  was  Paul's. 
AVe  find  that  the  early  Church  reasoned  in  this 
way,  though  we  can  not  here  give  details. 

Then  as  to  Epistles.  They  were  accepted 
because  they  came  from  apostles.  All  Epistles 
were  written  to  Christians.  There  is  no  trace  of 
one  written  to  Jews  or  to  heathen ;  and  what  the 
Christians  wanted  to  know  about  an  Epistle  was 
in  brief  whether  it  came  from  an  apostle.  There 
is  no  trace  of  any  Epistle  being  accepted  on  any 
other  ground  than  its  apostolic  authorship.  Men 
had  faith  in  the  apostles.  The  'signs  of  an 
apostle'  had  been  wrought  everywhere  in  the 
Church  ;  and  all  Christians  knew  that  apostles 
had  authority  to  '  bind  and  loose.'  That  authority 
entitled  them  to  w^ite  doctrinal  and  regulative 
treatises,    which    were     statutes     for     the    whole 


186  RECOGNITION  OF  AUTHORITY.  [Lfxt.  vi. 

Church  of  Christ.  It  was  therefore  a  simple 
question  of  authorship.  The  books  about  which 
there  was  any  question  were  books  about  which 
there  was  uncertainty  as  to  the  author.  Hebrews, 
as  we  have  seen,  was  for  long  a  disputed  book 
in  the  Western  Church,  because  men  were  not 
satisfied  that  it  came  from  Paul.  It  was  accepted 
as  Paul's  in  Alexandria — to  which  city  it  was 
sent — and  over  the  East  from  the  earliest  times 
downwards.^  It  was  not  so  in  the  West. 
Tertullian  ascribes  the  Epistle  to  Barnabas ;  and 
he  quotes  it  in  a  significant  way.  He  did  not 
think  Barnabas  an  apostle  in  the  sense  of  being 
a  founder  of  the  Church  :  and  thouo-h  he  described 
that  eminent  Christian  as  a  man  '  sufficiently 
accredited  by  God,'  he  regarded  a  quotation  from 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  as  '  redundant '  rather 
than  relevant.  And  so  far  as  one  can  see, 
there  was  no  controversy  about  the  acceptance  of 
any  Epistle,  unless  there  were  doubt  about  the 
authorship. 

It  is  not  easy  to  state  the  case  without  appar- 
ently reasoning  in  a  circle,  or  without  ascribing 
to  something  called  the  '  Collective  Church '  (a 
thing  which  did  not  exist  at  all)  the  authority 
to  form  a  Canon.  But  still  the  fact  is  that  the 
miraculous  constitution  of  the  Christian  society 
which    the   Saviour  came    to   establish,   really  led 

^   CaHonicily,  pp.  272,  280. 


Lect.  VI.]  ROMAN  CATHOLIC  THEORY.  187 

to  the  formation  of  this  Canon,  and  is  inseparable 
from  it.  Christ,  the  Supreme  Life  ;  apostles,  as 
competent  witnesses  for  Christ ;  with  those  the 
Church  had  come  into  living  contact ;  and  Gospels 
were  received  because  they  were  true  books  about 
Christ ;  Epistles,  because  they  came  from  the  men 
whom  He  had  appointed  to  'judge  the  twelve 
tribes  of  Israel,'  to  'bind  and  loose  on  earth 
what  would  be  bound  and  loosed  in  heaven.' 
The  Church  was  '  built  upon  the  foundation  of 
the  apostles  and  prophets,  Jesus  Christ  Himself 
being  the  chief  corner-stone.' 

If,  then,  we  are  asked  why  these  books  of  our 
Canon  are  canonical,  we  must  answer  that  it  is 
because  they  are  apostolical,  and  because  the  Church 
is  founded  upon  the  apostles. 

If  we  be  asked  whether  this  is  not  such  an 
acknowledgment  of  the  power  of  the  Church  to  fix 
the  Canon  as  Roman  Catholic  apologists  claim,  we 
can  easily  show  that  it  was  very  different.  By  '  the 
Church '  they  mean  the  organized  corporation — in 
point  of  fact,  its  office-bearers,  formally  constituted. 
Some  of  them — witness  Cardinal  Newman^ — even 
go  so  far  as  to  say  that  we  receive  the  Canon  on 
the  authority  of  the  Church  of  the  fourth  or  fifth 

^  '  On  what  ground,  then,  do  we  receive  the  Canon  as  it  comes  to  us 
but  on  the  authority  of  the  Church  of  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries  V 
The  Church  at  that  era  decided — not  merely  bore  testimony,  but  passed 
a  judgment  on  former  testimony — that  certain  books  were  of  authority. 
And  on  what  ground  did  she  so  decide?     On  the  ground  that  a  decition 


188  RECOGNITION  OF  AUTHORITY.  [Lect.  vi. 

centuries.  But  the  Church  gave  no  decision  during 
those  centuries.  There  is  not  in  the  whole  history 
of  the  Church  of  Christ  down  to  the  Council  of 
Trent  in  1546  any  decree  or  formal  utterance  of 
the  Church  fixing  the  Canon.  There  was  in 
Carthage,  a.d.  397,  a  local  gathering,  what  Presby- 
terians would  call  a  meeting  of  presbytery,  repre- 
senting forty-four  parishes,  at  which  Augustine  was 
present.  Its  'decree'  speaks  of  canonical  Scrip- 
tures, but  it  does  not  claim  any  authority  to  fix 
the  Canon.  It  regards  '  canonical  Scriptures  '  as 
already  agreed  upon,  how  or  when  it  does  not  say  ; 
and  its  only  concern  is  to  forbid  any  other  books  to 
be  read  in  church  under  the  name  of  '  Divine  Scrip- 
tures.' It  throws  us  back  to  earlier  times  for  the 
process  and  the  conclusions  indicated  by  its  familiar 
use  of  the  phrase  'canonical  Scriptures.'  The 
earlier  Council  of  Laodicea,  a.d.  364,  has  left  no 
genuine  decree  on  the  contents  of  the  Canon.  We 
can  challenge  the  Roman  Catholic,  or  any  imitator, 
to  point  to  any  authoritative  utterance  of  what 
he  calls  '  the  Church '  before  the  Council  of  Trent. 
Even  if  he  shared  the  belief  enjoined  by  recent 
decrees  of  the  Vatican,  and  claimed  that  a  pope 
should  speak  with  church  authority,  he  could  find 

had  been  impossible  hitherto  in  an  age  of  persecution  from  want  of 
opportunities  for  research,  discussion,  and  testimony  ;  from  the  private  or 
the  local  character  of  some  of  the  books  ;  and  from  misapprehension  of 
the  doctrine  contained  in  others.'— Newman,  Development  of  Christian 
Doctrine,  p.  125. 


Lect.  VI.]  ORDIXAEY  PROCEDURE.  189 

on  tliis  subject  no  sure  voice  of  even  a  pope^  till 
about  a  hundred  years  before  the  Tridentine  Council, 
when  Pope  Eugenius  (a.d.  1441)  promulgated  the 
same  list  of  books  as  the  Council  afterwards  sanc- 
tioned. There  is  therefore  no  acknowledgment  of 
the  '  power  of  the  Church '  when  we  accept  the 
New  Testament  Canon. 

Nay   more,    the    whole    proceeding    is    one    far 
removed  from  conciliar  or  ecclesiastical  authority. 
When   it    is    seen  to  be    one   of  authorship,   why 
should  a  council  be    needed  to  settle    that  ?     No 
council    of    grammarians    settled    the    number    of 
the  writings  of  Cicero  or  Livy.     Each  one  when 
it  appeared  was  attested  by  those  who  knew ;  and 
any  man  would  think  it  absurd  to  demand  the  proof 
that  some  literary  society  in  Rome  recorded  in  its 
minutes  the  fact  of  such  and  such  a  work  (which 
would  have  needed  to  be  engrossed  in  those  minutes) 
having  come  from  the  pen  of  the  orator  or  of  the 
historian.    The  acceptance  of  an  epistle  as  Paul's  in 
any  branch  of  the  Church  was  the  result  of  an  in- 
quiry and  of  satisfactory  attestation,  such  as  that 
with  w^hich  men  were  familiar  every  day.    No  doubt 
this  was  only  the  first  step  towards  canonizing  the 
epistle.     But  it  was  the  inevitable  first  step.     Once 
it  was  taken  the  next  followed.     This  letter  is  Paul's, 

*  Innocent  I.  (a.d.  405)  is  said  to  have  written  a  letter,  but  it  is  not 
believed  to  be  genuine.  The  Decree  of  Gelasius  (a.d.  492  ?)  cannot  be 
quoted  because  of  its  being  subjected  to  so  many  alterations.  See 
Canonicity.  • 


190  RECOGNITION  OF  AUTHORITY  [Lect.  vi. 

men  said,  and  thereupon  deference  to  the  contents, 
obedience  to  its  unhesitating  claim,  sprang  out  of 
the  work  of  the  Spirit  of  God  living  in  the  Church. 
'  Eye  had  not  seen,  nor  ear  heard,  Avhat  God  had  pre- 
pared for  them  that  love  Him  ;  but  God  had  revealed 
them  unto  Christian  believers  by  His  Spirit,'  and 
those  letters  of  their  apostles  were  the  embodiment 
of  that  divine    revelation.     We  are    not  transcen- 
dental, we  are  only  historical,  when  we  appeal  to 
the  correspondence  of  the  contents  of  the  Epistle 
with  the  spiritual  testimony  in  a  believer's  heart, 
as  endowing  in  those  early  times  the  apostolic  letter 
with  its  irresistible  power.     It  is  to  this  St.  Paul 
appeals  in  his  letter  to    the   Galatians  :    ^  I   make 
known   to   you,  brethren,   as    touching  the  gospel 
which  was   preached  by  me,  that  it  is   not    after 
man.     For  neither  did  I  receive  it  from  man,  nor 
was  I  taught  it,  but  it  came  to  me  through  revela- 
tion of  Jesus   Christ'    (Gal.  i.   11,   12).      Then  he 
recalls  them  to  his  gospel,  and  says  :  '  I  am  afraid 
of  you,  lest  by  any  means  I  have  bestowed  labour 
upon  you   in  vain'   (iv.    11).      'With  freedom  did 
Christ  set  us  free:    stand  fast,   therefore'   (v.    1). 
*  Ye  were  running  well  ;  who  did  hinder  you  that 
ye  should  not  obey  the  truth  ?'  (v.   7).     One  can 
easily  see  how  a  letter  like  that,  besides  the  large 
characters  in  which  his  infirmity  of  vision  caused 
him  to  write  all  or  part  of  it  when  he  wrote  with 
his  own  hand,  would  bear  in  its  very  contents  what 


Lect.  VI.]  IN  THE  SECOND  CENTURY.  191 

waked  up  the  memory  of  his  miracles  and  his 
power ;  and  what  was  therefore  an  irresistible 
appeal  to  the  Galatians  to  bow  before  it,  to  count 
it  God's  word,  to  make  it  the  centre  and  nucleus 
of  their  New  Testament.  I  do  not  refer  to  that  as 
taking  the  subject  out  of  the  realm  of  history  ; 
on  the  contrary,  these  are  the  historical  elements 
which  lead  us  to  accept  the  Galatian  canonization 
of  this  letter  as  an  ultimate  historical  fact. 

We  have  tried  to  brino-  the  formation  of  the 
Canon  into  the  regions  of  history.  And  it  remains 
to  indicate  the  kind  of  historical  proof  which  shows 
that  it  was  formed  in  the  way  we  have  described,  and 
that  this  was  the  principle  which  ruled  men  through 
the  ages.  We  have  already  incidentally  stated 
the  proof  when  dealing  with  the  testimonies  of 
the  early  Christians  ;  but  we  may  now  collect  the 
principles  which  these  testimonies  contain,  refer- 
ring to  previous  lectures  for  fuller  details.  The 
Muratorian  Canon  (see  before,  p.  157)  accepts  the 
canonical  books  as  coming  from  apostles.  Books 
of  more  recent  date  than  the  apostolic  era  the 
unknown  author  summarily  rejects  ;  books  of 
heretics,  books  forged  in  the  names  of  apostles,  he 
throws  away;  but  the  books  he  accepts  are  apos- 
tolic books.  The  way  in  which  he  connects  Luke's 
Gospel  with  Paul,  and  the  Acts  with  Paul  and 
Peter,  shows  that  he  did  not  think  Luke  had 
authority  to  write  what  took  place  after  Paul  and 


192  KECOGXITIOX  OF  AUTHORITY.  [Lect.  vi. 

Peter  were  removed  from  his  side.  And  of  all  the 
books  in  his  catalogue  he  implies,  what  he  says  of 
the  Gospels,  that  they  come  from  one  Supreme 
Spirit.  The  Spirit  in  the  Church  had  recognised 
the  Spirit  speaking  in  the  books. 

Irenseus  (a.d.  180)  founds  Christian  acceptance 
of  the  books  on  the  fact  that  God  made  the  same 
men  write  the  books  whom  He  had  in  the  first 
instance  made  heralds  of  the  faith.^ 

Tertulhan  (a.d.  160-220)  says  :  'We settle  it  first 
of-  all  that  the  evangelical  collection  {Evangelicum 
Instrumentum)  had  apostles  for  its  authors,  on  whom 
this  function  of  promulgating  the  gospel  was  laid 
by  the  Lord  Himself;  and  if  there  were  also  apos- 
tolic men  [not  apostles],  yet  they  did  not  stand 
alone  as  authors,  but  wrought  with  apostles  and 
after  apostles.'  He  goes  on  to  say  that  the  authority 
of  those  apostolic  men  (Mark  and  Luke)  would  be 
liable  to  suspicion  if  it  were  not  supported  by  the 
authority  of  their  masters.^  When  he  speaks  of  the 
Epistles  lie  challenges  the  doubters  to  go  to  the 
churches  to  which  those  Epistles  were  addressed  if 
they  wanted  the  aiiostolicity  of  the  letters  to  be 
authenticated.  *  If  you  are  near  Achaia,  you  have 
Corinth.  If  you  are  not  far  from  Macedonia,  you 
have  the  Philippians,  you  have  the  Thessalonians. 
If  you    can    bend   your    steps    to  Asia,   you  have 

*  See  Note  at  end  of  this  lecture. 

^  Tert.  Adv.  Marc.  iv.  2 ;   Canoniclty,  p.  76. 


Lect.  VI.]       THIRD  AND  FOURTH  CENTUEIES.  193 

Ephesus,'  etc.^  He  thus  bases  his  acceptance  upon 
the  evidence  for  apostolic  authorship  of  the  par- 
ticular letters  which  could  be  had  in  those  churches. 
Some  think  that  his  words  point  to  the  existence  of 
the  originals  of  the  several  letters  in  those  places 
at  his  day.     But  this  is  uncertain. 

Origen  (a.d.  184-253)  is  satisfied  to  refer  the 
writings  to  apostles,  and  he  dwells  upon  Mark 
writing  what  Peter  recounted,  and  on  Luke's  being 
the  Gospel  which  Paul  praised.^  He  accepts 
Hebrews  as  Paul's,  as  all  the  Eastern  Church  did, 
and  accounts  for  its  being  more  Hellenistic  in 
phraseology  than  Paul's  ordinary  letters  are,  by 
supposing  that  some  Greek  like  Clement  or  Luke 
wrote  it,  conveying  the  pupil's  account  of  his  great 
master's  thoughts. 

Eusebius,  at  his  later  date  (a.d.  270-340),  founds 
upon  the  acceptance  or  rejection  by  the  Church,  but 
not  as  though  the  Church  had  authority  to  make  a 
Canon.  It  is  only  to  the  historical  testimony  of  the 
Church  he  refers,  and  that  testimony  goes  to  estab- 
lish the  fact  of  apostolic  authorship.  In  the  pre- 
vious century  we  find  how  Caius  and  Dionysius 
reasoned  against  the  reception  of  the  Apocalypse  on 
the  ground  of  its  not  being  the  w^ork  of  the  Apostle 
John.  Caius  boldly  called  it  fabricated  nonsense^ 
and    ascribed   it    to    Cerinthus.      Dionysius,  more 

^  De  Prxs.  Hxret.  c.  36 ;   Canonicity,  p.  48. 

^  Euseb.  H.  E.  vi.  25  ;   Canonicity^  p.  8.     See  before,  p.  1C5. 

N 


194:  RECOGXITION  OF  AUTHORITY.  [Lect.  vl 

cautiously,  says  he  would  not  venture  to  set  aside 
a  book  which  many  brethren  esteem  so  highly. 
By  '  set  aside '  he  means  to  scout,  and  all  his 
arguments  tend  to  put  it  away  as  being  the  work 
of  some  unknown  author/  These  men  felt  that  it 
would  not  be  a  canonical  book  if  it  were  not 
apostolical. 

In  the  same  way  the  illustrious  Athanasius 
(a.d.  365)  wants  to  set  forth  the  books  which 
have  been  canonized  and  handed  down  (jrapaBodipTa) 
and  accredited  {irLcrTevOevTa),  believed  to  be  divine. 
He  speaks  of  their  acceptance  as  a  long  accom- 
plished fa^st ;  they  are  a  collection  which  can  neither 
be  made  greater  nor  less.  They  are  the  wells  of 
salvation  ;  in  them  alone  is  the  teaching  of  piety.^ 

If  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  (a.d.  386)^  dwells  upon  the 
living  organic  connection  between  the  Old  Testa- 
ment and  the  New,  it  is  not  to  supersede  his  con- 
fidence in  the  agreement  to  which  the  Church  had 
come  upon  the  numbers  and  the  names  of  the  books. 

Jerome  (a.d.  329-420),  too,  founds  upon  the  con- 
sent of  past  ages.  He  dwells  on  the  inner  glory  of 
the  Scriptures ;  but  not  as  though  that  were  in 
lieu  of  the  historical  argument.  '  Matthew,  Mark, 
Luke,  and  John,  the  four-steed  chariot  of  the  Lord 
and  the  true  cherubim  (a  word  which  means  the 
manifoldness  of  wisdom),  have  eyes  over  their  whole 

^  See  Canonicity,  p.  343,  for  Caius ;  and  pp.  346,  347,  for  Dionysius. 
2  Athanasius'  Paschal  Letter  (39).     See  CaJionicity,  p.  13. 
^  Catechis.  iv.  36  ;   Canonicit//,  p.  19. 


Lect.  VI.]  FOURTH  CENTURY.  195 

bodies  ;  they  shower  out  sparks,  lightnings  glow  all 
round  them,  their  feet  are  erect  and  mount  on 
high,  their  backs  are  vv^inged  and  fly  everywhere. 
They  are  interlaced,  too,  and  all  their  movements 
are  as  though  wheel  were  within  wheel,  and  they 
go  wherever  the  breath  of  the  Holy  Spirit  guides 
them.'  And  at  the  close  of  his  enumeration  of 
the  books  he  says  :  ^  My  words  are  inadequate  to 
the  worth  of  the  volume.  All  laudation  is  beneath 
its  desert ;  in  every  single  w^ord  there  lie  multiplied 
meanings.'  ^ 

In  Augustine  (a.d.  354-430)  we  find  a  more 
simple  acceptance  of  ancient  testimonies,  but  they 
are  the  testimonies  of  the  central  Christian  churches  ; 
and  he  thus  repeats  the  principle  of  Tertullian.^ 
The  so-called  '  Apostolical  Constitutions '  require 
that  readers  not  only  take  note  of  apostolical 
names  attached  to  books,  but  of  the  nature  of  the 
contents.^ 

In  short,  it  can  be  made  out  that  early  Christians, 
knowing  that  the  apostles  were  accredited  by  Christ 
to  be  the  founders  of  the  Church,  accepted  the  books 
because  proved  to  come  from  those  apostles,  and 
never  raised  any  other  test  in  regard  to  any  one  of 
which  they  were  in  doubt  unless  it  be  this — that  it 
should  harmonize  with  those  of  which  they  were 
already  sure.     In  that  way  they  used  the  apostolic 

^  Epist.  ii.  ad  PauUnuni;  Canonicity,  p.  21. 

2  De  Doctriua  Christiana,  ii,  12,  13  ;   Canonicity,  p.  20. 

3  Apost.  Constt.  vi.  16 ;  Canonicity,  p.  26. 


196  RECOGNITION  OF  AUTHORITY.  [Lect.  vi. 

books  already  in  their  hands  to  test  others  which 
were  brought  to  their  notice. 

Durinof  the  centuries  which  intervene  between 
the  Council  of  Nice  (a.d.  325)  and  the  Reformation, 
there  is  not  much  to  cause  us  to  tarry  in  our  his- 
torical survey.  Lists  of  canonical  books,  compiled 
by  individuals,  are  common  enough.  Two  are 
ascribed  to  popes,  but  without  good  reason.  Nor 
is  there  much  to  cause  delay  when  we  search  for 
the  principles  on  which,  during  that  period,  canon- 
ical authority  was  ascribed  to  the  books  of  the 
New  Testament.  Christendom  was  built  on  the 
apostles  and  prophets,  and  occupied  itself  in  raising 
and  extending  the  goodly  edifice  ;  often  enough 
putting  wood,  hay,  and  stubble  on  the  living  stones 
of  the  sure  foundation.  In  the  fifteenth  century, 
when  the  corruptions  of  the  Church  were  becoming 
intolerable,  men  began  again  to  search  and  see 
what  manner  of  basis  there  was  for  the  Christian 
faith.  In  that  terrible  confusion,  w^hen  at  one  time 
there  were  four  rival  popes  and  at  another  two, 
each  of  the  latter  with  a  council  to  sustain  him, 
when  Huss  was  burnt  for  heresy  by  a  judgment 
which  came  from  a  profligate  pope,  there  w^ere 
many  signs  that  men  were  inquiring  after  the  true 
word  of  God.  Wiclifs  work  was  spreading  and 
making  men  think.  Pope  Eugenius,  in  a.d.  1441, 
broke  the  long  silence  of  the  Church  by  promul- 
gating, on  his  own  authority,  a  list  of  the  books  of 


Lect.  yi.]  papal  lists.  197 

Scripture,  a  list  which  was  faithfully  echoed  by  the 
Council  of  Trent  a  hundred  years  later.  This  was 
not  an  authoritative  list,  for  the  Komish  Church 
had  by  this  time  concluded  that  it  is  not  the  pope 
alone,  but  the  pope  in  council,  that  is  infallible. 

As  regards  the  New  Testament,  the  papal   list 
is  the   same   as   our  own  ;  but  because   the   Latin 
Vulgate,  Jerome's  translation  of  the  Scripture,  con- 
tained the  Old  Testament  Apocrypha,  the  decree 
of  the   pope,  and  eventually  of  the  council,  must 
needs  canonize  the  whole.     It  was  not  easy  for  the 
Komisli  Church  to  own  that  it  had  erred  so  long 
in  accepting  those  apocryphal  books  ;  and  ignorant 
ecclesiastics  directed  this   Canon  of  the  Yulofate, 
and  apparently  the   Latin   translation  itself,  to  be 
acknowledged  as  the  ultimate  authority  in  ^  public 
readings,  discussions,  preachings,   and   expositions.' 
The    Tridentine    Council  furthermore  forbade  any 
one  to  dare  to  interpret  Scripture  ^  contrary  to  that 
sense  which  the  Holy  Mother  Church  has  held  and 
holds,  .  .  .  even  though  such  interpretations  should 
never  be  destined  to  come  to  light.'     The  necessity 
of  finding  some   means    of  putting   down    Luther 
and  the   Reformers  led  the  Latin  Church  to  this 
restrictive  and  irrational  use  of  the   Vulgate  and 
its   Canon.     The   Church  furthermore   resolved  to 
have    an    authoritative    edition    of    this    standard 
Canon,  and  one  was  published  with  the  full  weight 
of  papal  approval,  which,  however,  was  so  full  of 


198  RECOGNITION  OF  AUTHORITY.  [Lect.  vi. 

blunders  as  to  be  superseded  two  years  afterwards 
by  another  that  no  scholar  regards  as  infallible, 
though  it  is  better  than  its  predecessor. 

Thus  the  Bible  of  the  Romish  Church  contains 
as  part  of  its  Canon  those  apocryphal  books  which 
were  not  acknowledged  as  scriptural  by  our  Lord 
or  by  any  of  His  apostles  ;  and  it  is,  moreover,  a 
translation  not  admitted  to  be  dependent  on  the 
sacred  originals,  through  which  the  word  of  God 
came  to  man  at  first.  It  is  little  wonder  that  a 
Church  which  could  digest  a  decree  like  that  should 
have  been  found  competent  in  our  later  times  to 
promulgate  the  personal  infallibility  of  the  pope 
and  the  immaculate  birth  of  the  Virgin  Mary. 
When  Erasmus  said/  in  his  usual  solemn  mockery, 
that  as  a  man  he  could  not  see  the  Pauline 
authorship  of  Hebrews,  but  that  as  a  son  of 
the  Church  he  accepted  it,  he  was  only  furnish- 
ing a  formula  of  which  the  morbid  earnestness 
of    John    Henry    Newman  ^   makes   pathetic   use 

1  '  Juxta  sensuin  Immanum  nee  credo  Ep.  ad  Hebr.  esse  Pauli  aut 
Lucse,  nee  secimdam  Petri  esse  Petri,  nee  Apocalypsim  esse  Joannis  Ap. 
qui  seripsit  Evangelium.'  But  if  the  Church  has  received  the  titles  as 
well  as  the  books,  '  Id  si  est,  damno  dubitationem  meam  .  .  .  plus  apud 
me  valet  expressum  Eeclesiae  judicium  quam  ullae  rationes  human.T ' 
{Declar.  ad  censur.  Fac.  Theol.  Paris.  0pp.  ix.  864).  Again,  of  Hebrews 
he  says :  '  Ipse,  ut  ingenue  fatear,  adhuc  dubito,  non  de  auctoritate,  sed 
de  auctore  '  (Snppntatio  errorum  N.  Beddas,  ix.  595). 

2  See  Newman's  Apologia  pra  Vita  Mea,  and  his  Development  of 
Christian  Doctrine,  passim.  The  latter  work  is  even  more  interesting 
than  the  Apologia,  because  it  gives  the  actual  arguments  which  the 
author  was  weighing  when  the  necessary  conclusion  forced  itself  upon 
him,  so  that  before  the  book  was  all  printed  he  acted  upon  it  and  left 


Lect.  VI.]  PAPAL  LISTS.  199 

in  regard  to  all  popish  dogmas  in  our  nineteenth 
century. 

The  Greek  Church  meanwhile  had  not  made 
such  free  use  as  the  Homan  Church  had  made 
of  extra-canonical  books  in  her  daily  worship, 
although  admitting  that  some  of  them  were 
good  for  edifying.  There  was  a  formal  decree 
on  the  subject  by  the  Council  of  Laodicea,  a.d. 
364,  which  said,  ^That  except  canonical  Scrip- 
tures, nothing  should  be  read  in  church  under  the 
name  of  Divine  Scriptures.'  There  is  a  spurious 
addition  to  this  decree,  giving  a  list  of  canonical 
books  ;  but  the  genuine  decree  ends  with  the  words 
we  have  quoted.  The  TruUan  Council  of  Constan- 
tinople, A.D.  692,  confirmed  the  Laodicean  decrees, 
but  we  are  not  entitled  to  say  that  the  list  of  books 
was  among  those  adopted.  Those  who  pin  their 
faith  to  those  tw^o  councils  do  a  darino^  thinof,  for 
the  Laodicean  was  a  local  synod,  probably  an  Arian 
one,  and  even  the  Trullan  was  not  a  general 
council,  and  the  Komish  Church  does  not  admit  it. 

Thus  the  Eastern  Church  was  as  completely 
without  a  fixed  Canon  as  the  Western  at  the 
Eeformation.  This  fact  induced  Cj'ril  Lukar,  the 
great  patriarch  of  Alexandria  and  afterwards  of 
Constantinople,  who  had  spent  some  years  in 
Europe  among  the  Eeformers,  to  believe  that  he 

the  Church  of  England.  The  ambiguity  lurking  in  the  word  '  church ' 
has  always  caused  the  gifted  and  venerated  author  to  mistake  the 
leading  of  the  '  Kindly  Light.' 


200  RECOGNITION   OF   AUTHORITY.         [Lect.  vr. 

could  prevail  upon  his  Church  not  only  to  avoid 
the  Komish  error  of  canonizing  the  Apocrypha, 
but  to  adopt  the  Protestant  principle  of  magnifying 
Scripture  above  tradition  and  above  the  Church. 
In  his  sanguine  hopefulness  he  published  a  noble 
document,  '  A  Confession  of  the  Faith  of  the 
Greek  Church  of  the  East,'  in  which  lie  denied 
all  authority  to  the  apocryphal  books,  because 
^  they  derive  none  from  the  Holy  Spirit ; '  but,  on 
the  other  hand,  exalted  the  position  of  Holy  Scrip- 
ture as  comino'  direct  from  God,  as  being"  hiofher 
than  the  Church,  as  being  a  plain  book  from 
which  all  regenerate  men  of  every  grade  could 
draw  the  infallible  wisdom  and  the  everlasting 
power  they  need.^  He  adopted  the  list  of  books 
ascribed  to  the  Council  of  Laodicea,  quietly  adding, 
however,  the  Apocalypse.  Instead  of  the  cordial 
acceptance  or  even  quiet  acquiescence  on  which  the 
good  patriarch  had  counted,  the  whole  Church  of 
the  East  rose  in  commotion  against  him  and  his 
'  Calvinism  ; '  men  scouted  the  idea  of  the  ancient 
East  being  reformed  by  petty  Geneva  ;  and  when 
they  had  put  Cyril  to  death  with  a  bowstring  in 
the  Bosphorus,  his  enemies  called  a  council  to  pro- 
mulgate a  true  Confession  of  the  Eastern  Faith. 
Its  chief  purpose  was  to  exalt  the  Church  as  equal 
to  Scripture,  and  to  declare  that  the  apocryphal 

^  Cyr.  Catech.  chap.  ii.  quest.  1 ;  Kimmers  Lib.  Symbol.  Eccl.  Or. 
pp.  25,  40,  42. 


Lect.  VI.]  THE  EASTERN  CHURCH.  201 

books  have  as  much  right  to  be  counted  Holy 
Scripture  as  any  others  have,  and  that  Cyril,  who 
had  thouoiit  otherwise,  was  without  sense  or  learn- 
ing,  and  a  man  bent  on  doing  ill.^  This  Council  of 
Jerusalem  (1672),  in  adopting  the  Confession  and 
Catechism  of  Dositheos,  which  contained  the  fore- 
going among  many  other  notable  remarks,  was 
probably  for  two  hundred  years  representative  of 
the  views  of  the  Eastern  Church — though  that 
Church  has  always  had  more  freedom,  less  cohesion, 
and  less  confession  than  the  Church  of  Rome  ;  but 
in  our  own  day  a  catechism  which  is  the  work  of 
the  Metropolitan  of  Moscow,  and  under  the  pat- 
ronage of  the  Russian  Emperor,  has  altered  the 
state  of  things  for  the  better.  This  catechism  of 
Philaret,  a.d.  1839,  does  indeed  exalt  tradition  as 
the  voice  of  the  living  Church  and  as  a  guide  to 
the  understanding  of  the  Scripture,  but  neverthe- 
less holds  that  it  is  only  to  be  followed  so  far  as  it 
agrees  with  the  divine  revelation  and  with  Holy 
Scripture.  It  further  makes  Scripture  indispen- 
sable for  securinor  the  unchano^eableness  of  revela- 
tion  ;  and  it  cuts  the  Apocrypha  adrift  by  declaring 
that  the  Old  Testament  Canon  contains  the  twenty- 
two  Hebrew  books,  and  the  New  Testament  the 
twenty-seven  accepted  by  Athanasius.  In  short, 
it  accepts  a  Canon  identical  with  our  own.^ 

'  ^  Dositheos'  Conf.  quest.  3.     See  Canonicity^  p.  3^. 
2  Schaff,  Creeds^  p.  445. 


202  RECOGNITION  OF  AUTHORITY.  [Lect.  vi. 

Thus,  then,  at  this  moment,  the  Greek  Church 
accepts  the  Bible  without  the  Apocrypha,  and  puts 
the  Scripture  above  the  Church.  The  Romish 
Church  puts  the  Apocrypha  in  the  Bible,  and  rests 
the  authority  and  the  interpretation  of  the  Canon 
on  the  voice  of  the  Church. 

What  is  the  position  of  the  reformed  Churches  ?  ^ 
The  Beformers  did  not  at  first  concern  themselves 
with  the  Canon.  They  were  occupied  with  doctrine, 
and  they  found  the  doctrine  in  the  books  accepted 
by  the  Bomish  Church  as  by  themselves.  But 
they  did  not  enumerate  the  books ;  still  less  did 
they  think  of  saying  why  they  believed  them  to  be 
divine.  Thus  the  sixty-seven  articles  of  Zwingli 
(1523)  have  no  paragraph  on  the  Canon  ;  and  the 
same  is  true  of  the  Theses  of  Berne  (1528).^  The 
Genevan  Catechism  (1536,  expanded  1545)  has  no 
article  on  the  Scripture.  Even  when  Scripture 
came  to  be  spoken  of  more  definitely,  there  was 
still  no  list  of  the  books  which  make  up  Scripture. 
The  Swiss,  the  German,  and  the  old  Scottish  Con- 
fessions contain  no  list  of  the  books  of  the  Bible. 
We  find  one  in  the  French  Confession  (Calvin's 
work)  of  1559  ;  and  another  in  the  Belgian 
Confession  of  1561,  revised  in   1619. 

^  See  a  more  detailed  examination  of  the  views  of  the  Reformers  in 
an  article  on  '  Canonicity,'  in  the  British  and  Foreign  Evangelical  Review^ 
1870.  The  substance  of  what  follows  is  the  same  as  in  that  article, 
though  I  have  tried  to  avoid  repetition. 

-  This  document  only  says  that  its  conclusions  are  drawn  from  the 
biblical  writings  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments. 


Lect.  VI.]  THE  REFORMED  CHURCH.  203 

In  both  the  last  -  named  creeds  there  is  an 
assault  on  the  Koman  Church,  in  a  distinct  claim 
of  supremacy  for  Holy  Scriptures,  on  the  ground 
that  the  testimony  and  inward  illumination  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  enables  Christians  to  distinguish  it 
from  all  other  ecclesiastical  books.  The  Council 
of  Trent  had  formally  thrown  down  a  challenge. 
It  recognised  the  Canon  because  of  the  traditions 
of  the  Church,  and  on  the  same  ground  of 
tradition  accepted  the  unwritten  ideas  about 
Christ  and  His  apostles,  of  which  the  Church 
had  been  made  the  custodian.  The  Eeformers 
believed  Scripture  to  be  higher  than  the 
Church.  But  on  what  could  they  rest  their 
acceptance  of  the  Canon  of  Scripture  ?  How  did 
they  know  those  books  to  be  Holy  Scriptures, 
the  only  and  ultimate  divine  revelation  ?  They 
answered  that  the  divine  authority  of  Scripture 
is  self-evidencing,  that  the  regenerate  man  needs 
no  other  evidence,  and  that  only  the  regenerate 
can  appreciate  the  evidence.  It  follows  from  this 
that  if  he  do  not  feel  the  evidence  of  their  contents, 
any  man  may  reject  books  claiming  to  be  Holy 
Scripture.  The  Eeformers  did  not  attempt  to  deal 
with  the  obviously  possible  and  probable  case  of 
a  man  who,  though  regenerate,  is  only  partially 
enlightened,  and  who  naturally,  though  wrongly, 
rejects  books  which  he  cannot  understand.  But 
they   did   proclaim   in   trumpet   tones   their   wide 


204  RECOGNITION  OF  AUTHORITY.  [Lect.  vr. 

severance  from  the  Latin  Church,  which  appealed 
to  the  witness  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  office- 
bearers of  the  Church,  while  the  Churches  of  the 
Reformation  appealed  to  the  witness  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  in  the  individual  heart.  The  Church  dis- 
appeared ;  the  personal  conviction  was  all  in  all. 
They  thought  that  in  this  way  they  made  doctrine 
the  test  of  the  books  as  the  early  Church  was 
enjoined  to  do  (Gal.  i.  9 ;  2  Thess.  ii.  1  ;  1  John  iv.  1). 
We  may  quote  Luther's  well  -  known  words  : 
'  The  touchstone  is  when  one  sees  whether  a  book 
urges  Christ  on  him  or  no  ;  what  does  not  teach 
Christ  is  not  apostolical,  no^  not  though  Paul  or 
Peter  taught  it ;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  what 
preaches  Christ  would  be  apostolical,  even  though 
Judas,  or  Annas,  or  Pilate,  or  Herod  did  it ' 
(Preface  to  James).  Elsewhere  he  says:  'In  short, 
John's  Gospel  and  his  First  Epistle,  the  Epistles 
of  Paul, — especially  those  to  Pomans,  Galatians, 
and  Ephesians, — and  Peter's  First  Epistle,  these 
are  the  books  w^hich  show  thee  Christ,  and  teach 
thee  all  that  it  is  holy  and  needful  to  know, 
though  thou  shouldst  never  see  nor  hear  the  teach- 
ing of  another  book '  (Preface  to  New  Testament). 
This  bold  severance  of  the  doctrine  from  the 
apostle  Avho  taught  it,  is  entirely  contrary  to  the 
mode  of  judging  seen  in  the  Christians  of  the 
apostolic  times,  if  we  have  apprehended  their  judg- 
ment rightly.     To  Luther  the  apostle  was  nothing ; 


Lect.  yi.]  LUTHER.  205 

to  the  Christians  of  the  first  age  the  apostle  was 
everything.  St.  Paul's  sweeping  anathema  on  man 
or  angel  who  should  preach  another  gospel  than 
his,  was  merely  his  way  of  saying  that  his  gospel 
was  God's  message,  and  divinely  true  for  ever. 

Luther's  translation  bore  witness  to  his  thorough- 
ness in  applying  his  principle.  He  set  Hebrews, 
James,  Jude,  and  the  Apocalypse  at  the  end  of 
the  New  Testament ;  attaching  no  numbers  to 
them,  while  he  had  numbered  the  previous  twenty- 
three  books,  and  at  the  close  of  the  twenty-three, 
saying  :  '  Thus  far  have  we  the  right  and  certain 
chief  books  of  the  New  Testament.'  Although 
he  glanced  at  the  lack  of  ancient  testimony  to 
those  books,  he  did  not  hide  his  objections  to 
them  on  doctrinal  grounds.  Against  Hebrews 
he  brings  forward  its  denial  of  repentance  after 
baptism  ;  against  James  (an  ^  Epistle  of  mere 
straw'),  the  opposition  to  Paul,  and  the  attempt 
to  teach  Christianity  without  once  mentioning  the 
sufferings  of  Christ ;  against  Jude,  its  being  a 
superfluous  echo  of  Second  Peter  ;  while  of  the 
Apocalypse  he  says  :  '  My  spirit  cannot  enter  into 
that  book  ;  and  it  is  reason  enough  for  my  not 
holdinof  it  in  hig^h  esteem  that  Christ  is  neither 
recognised  nor  taught  in  it.'  ^ 

It  is  obvious  that  this  position  was  liable  to 
assault    on    many    sides.       Luther     himself    was 

^  This  denunciation  of  the  Apocalypse  was  afterwards  modified. 


206  RECOGNITION  OF  AUTHORITY.  [Lect.  vi. 

embarrassed  by  the  claims  of  the  Mystics.  They, 
like  him,  said  the  inner  spirit  was  all-important ; 
but  unlike  him,  they  claimed  to  have  a  higher 
illumination  than  the  written  word.  He  tried 
to  show  that  no  Mystic  is  warranted  to  contradict 
the  general  testimony  of  the  Spirit  in  the  disciples 
of  Christ ;  but  he  felt  that  in  consequence  he 
must  modify  some  of  his  own  strong  statements 
reo^ardino^  the  four  books  he  had  cast  out.  He 
was  too  resolute,  and  felt  himself  too  right,  to 
withdraw  his  general  principle. 

Nor  indeed  could  he  have  withdrawn  it.  It 
was  in  the  air.  The  other  Reformers  were  full  of 
it,  like  himself.  Zwing^li  claimed  the  ris^ht  to 
reject  the  testimonies  which  might  be  adduced  for 
the  Apocalypse,  inasmuch  as  'it  did  not  (to  him) 
smack  of  the  mouth  and  spirit  of  John.'  The 
hearts  of  the  Keformers  were  burdened  with  the 
obligation  to  proclaim  as  a  primary  truth  that  the 
soul  of  man  has  direct  communion  with  the  livinof 
God  ;  and  they  could  not  but  hold  and  teach 
that  God  so  speaks  to  man  in  the  word,  that  the 
word  interprets  itself  to  every  willing  soul.  But 
they  erred  in  speaking  as  though  they  were  the 
discoverers  of  Scripture.  In  one  sense  they  w^ere  : 
they  had  found  it  deep  down  beneath  rubbish  and 
wrong;  but,  in  a  higher  sense,  it  had  been  God's 
bread  for  hungering  souls  through  all  ages.  They 
knew  that  Christ  was  with  them  as  they  read  and 


Lect.  vi]  CALVIX.  207 

prayed ;  but  tliey  forgot  that  He  had  been  always 
with  His  own. 

Calvin  felt  the  force  of  such  considerations,  for 
his  writings  and  the  creeds  of  the  Churches  w^hich 
he  swayed  give  a  place  to  the  historical  evidence 
for  the  books  of  the  Canon.^  He  asserts  as 
strongly  as  Luther  that  Scripture  itself  is  the 
best  evidence  that  it  has  come  from  God  ;  but 
he  does  not  stop  there,  so  as  to  cast  away  every 
testimony  that  does  not  rise  up  in  the  individual 
heart.  He  meets  those  who  asked  how  they  could 
be  persuaded  that  Scripture  has  come  from  God, 
unless  they  take  refuge  in  a  decree  of  the  Church, 
by  asking  them  in  return  how  they  knew  light  from 
darkness  and  sweet  from  bitter,  and  by  declaring 
that  Scripture  brings  a  perception  of  its  own  truth. 
But  he  does  not  forget  that  the  consent  of  the 
Church  is  to  be  kept  in  mind,  as  well  as  the 
intellectual  arguments  for  the  divine  character  of 
the  Bible,  when  a  man  who  has  the  inner  witness 
looks  for  arguments  such  as  can  be  used  to  con- 
vince others,^ 

The  testimony  of  the  Reformers  seems  to  us 
faulty  from  defect  ;  but  it  is  needful  to  clear  it 
of  some  misconceptions.     It  is  often  said  of  them 

1  Though  Calvin  does  not  admit  that  Peter  is  the  author  of  the 
Second  Epistle  in  his  name,  or  that  Paul  wrote  Hebrews,  he  comes  to 
his  conclusion  on  historical  grounds.  Luther  sometimes  did  so  also  ; 
e.g.  he  says  Jude  never  needed  Greek,  as  he  went  to  Persia,  so  that 
the  Epistle  cannot  be  his. 

2  Calv.  Imt.  Book  I.  chaps,  vi.  vii.  viii. 


2  08  RECOGNITION  OF  AUTHORITY.  [Lect.  vi. 

that  they  substituted  the  Infallible  Book  for  the 
Infallible  Man  ;  so  that — quite  as  much  as  Papists 
— they  were  under  an  infallibility  which  took  their 
own  responsibility  away.  But  this  is  not  at  all  a 
true  account.  The  fundamental  principle  of  the 
Reformation  was  that  a  sinner  has  direct,  saving, 
and  indestructible  communion  Avith  the  living 
God.  In  the  matter  of  the  Canon,  this  led  to 
the  transfer  of  authority  from  the  witness  of  the- 
Spirit  in  the  visible  Church  to  the  witness  of  the 
Spirit  in  the  regenerate  heart.  The  test  of  all 
truth,  the  test  of  the  warrant  of  each  book  to  be 
accepted  as  canonical,  was,  according  to  the  first 
Reformers,  the  witness  of  the  Christian  soul 
instructed  by  the  Holy  Spirit  of  Jesus  Christ 
Himself  Luther  and  Zwingli  found  the  infallible 
authority  in  the  Spirit  of  God  within  themselves. 
This  is  indeed  open  to  challenge,  but  not  on  the 
ground  that  it  substituted  an  infallible  Church  for 
an  infallible  man.  Its  weakness  is  that  it  isolated 
the  individual  Christian. 

When  Calvin  gave  a  place  to  historical  testimony, 
he  effected  a  revolution,  though  its  effects  were 
not  seen  for  a  long  time.  When  he  enumerates 
the  arguments  for  the  authority  of  Scripture, 
such  as  the  nature  of  the  doctrine,  the  exquisite 
harmony  of  the  different  parts,  the  antiquity  of 
the  books,  the  miraculous  sanctions  of  the  law, 
the    evidence    of    prophecy,    and    winds    up    his 


Lect.  yi.]  CALVIN.  209 

enumeration  with  the  'consent  of  the  Church/ 
he  was  manifesting  his  usual  independence  and  far- 
sightedness. In  his  view,  Scripture  is  undoubtedly 
and  essentially  self-evidencing  {avroTno-ro^)  when  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  teaching  a  human  soul,  but  never- 
theless human  testimonies  are  valuable  accessories 
to  the  primary  foundation. 

It  is  in  the  nature  of  things  that  this  admission 
.of  historical  testimony  should  become  more  avowed 
and  prominent  as  we  trace  the  stream  of  events 
from  Calvin's  days  to  our  own.     The  Churches  of 
the    Reformation    were,    like    Christendom    itself, 
based    upon    doctrine    and    fact    before    they   had 
books    for    standards  ;     and    the    bond    of    union 
among   them  was   the   Protestant    doctrine  which 
they  held.     Naturally  and  logically,  they  omitted 
from  their  creeds  at  first  any  list  of  the  canonical 
writings.     In  course  of  time,  however,  and  under 
the    influences    of  controversy,   they  were    led   to 
intimate  their  adherence  to  a  fixed  Canon.     From 
the  same  causes  they  came,  in   subsequent  times, 
to   accept  on  no  higher   authority  than   tradition 
the    canonical    Scripture    as    supreme    in   all    con- 
troversy.    The  ordinary  faith  of  Christians  appears 
until  a  comparatively  recent    date    to    have   been 
expressed   by  the    practical   yet    self- contradictory 
words  of  the  Articles  of  the  Church  of  England 
(1562),  which  say  in  one  place,  like  the  Confession 

of  Wurtemberg  and  the  Belgian  Confession,  that 

0 


210  RECOGNITION  OF  AUTHORITY.  [Lect.  vi. 

the   Canon  is   limited   to   those  books   'of  whose 
authority    there    never    was    any    doubt    in    the 
Church,'    and   in  another  that   it   consists  of   'all 
the   books    as    they   were    commonly   received    at 
the    Eeformation.'      The   Wiirtemberg    Confession 
excludes  the  Antilegomena  from  its  Hst,  and  thus 
secures     consistency,    but     the     English     Article 
includes    them.       Such    a    position     cannot    bear 
close    examination,    for    the   most    cursory   glance 
shows   that   there  are    some  books  in  our  Canon 
of  which  there  was   much  doubt   in  the  Church, 
notably  at  the  time  of  the  Reformation.     Again, 
Luther  put  four  books  in  an  inferior  rank,  while 
the  Anglican  Church  makes  no  distinction.      The 
Anglican  Articles,  moreover,  make  no  mention  of 
the  grounds  upon  which  the  Reformers  accepted 
certain    books.      The    conclusion,    in    short,    rests 
upon   no   principle,   and   is    merely  an   acceptance 
of  limited  and  recent  tradition.     It  must  be  added 
that  the  Church  of  England  gives  no  list  of  books 
of  the  New  Testament  which  are  to  be  received 
into    the   Canon,   and  so  increases  the   perplexity 
into  which  her  utterances  on  the  subject  have  put 
her  members. 

The  Confession  of  the  Westminster  Divines  is 
in  a  different  relation  to  science.  It  bases  the 
authority  of  Scripture  solely  on  its  being  the 
"Word  of  God ;  and  the  proof  of  its  being  the 
Word  of  God  is  divided  into  many  parts,  of  which 


Lect.  vi]  OBJECTIVE  GROUNDS.  211 

the  '  testimony  of  the  Church '  is  the  first,  and 
the  '  incomparable  excellences  and  the  entire 
perfection '  of  the  Scripture  itself  is  the  last ; 
'  yet,  notwithstanding,  our  full  persuasion  and 
assurance  of  the  infallible  truth  and  divine 
authority  thereof  is  from  the  inward  work  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  bearing  witness  by  and  with 
the  Word  in  our  hearts.' 

Here  there  is  every  branch  of  the  wide  argument. 
The  external  testimony  from  old  time,  the  appeal  to 
our  intellect  made  by  the  unspeakable  grandeur  of 
the  Word  of  God,  the  appeal  to  our  conscience  from 
the  ^  efficacy  of  the  doctrine,'  and  the  discovery  of 
the  way  of  salvation  ;  but  finally,  and  above  all,  the 
inward  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  enabling  the  child 
of  God  to  be  sure  that  he  hears  his  Father's  voice. 

Such  a  combination  of  various  considerations  is 
the  only  possible  mode  of  arriving  at  a .  sure  and 
adequate  conclusion.  Science,  history,  and  inner 
light  are  not  mutual  foes,  but  allies  in  behalf  of 
truth  ;  and  men  who  shut  out  any  one  of  them  are 
not  true  to  the  wide  veracity  of  the  revelation  of 
God. 

For  let  us  see  how  we  may  state  our  reasons  for 
accepting  the  Bible  as  the  Word  of  God. 

I.  Those  reasons  are  not  merely  ohjectivej  like 
those  stated  by  some  Churches. 

(1.)  They  are  not  those  of  the  Koman  Catholic 


212  RECOGNITION  OF  AUTHORITY.  [Lect.  vr. 

Church.  They  do  not,  Kke  Cardinal  Newman's, 
peril  all  upon  the  voice  of  the  Church,  so  that  we 
should  be  bound  to  accept  any  dogma  whatever 
which  the  Church  may  choose  to  promulgate,  on 
the  same  Qfrounds  as  we  take  the  Bible  on  the 
Church's  authority.  We  do  not  deny  the  fascina- 
tion which  Papists  and  Plymouthists  feel  in  the 
truth  of  a  livinof  Church  whose  life  is  the  indwellinof 
Holy  Spirit ;  but  we  do  not  believe  that  the  life  of 
the  Church  can  be  true  if  it  develops  outside  of 
the  truth  of  the  Word. 

(2.)  They  are  not  those  of  the  Greek  Church. 
We  neither  agree  with  Dositheos  in  1672,  that 
because  of  ancient  tradition  we  must  take  the 
Apocrypha  as  part  of  Holy  Scripture,  nor  with 
Philaret  in  1839,  that  holy  tradition  is  in  any  sense 
or  degree  co-ordinate  with  Holy  Scripture.  We  do 
not  think  that — apart  from  Scripture — the  Church 
has  proved  herself  a  ^  sure  repository  of  holy 
tradition.' 

(3.)  Our  reasons  are  not  those  of  the  Articles  of 
the  Church  of  England.  They  cannot  be,  because 
those  Articles  give  reasons  inconsistent  with  each 
other  and  with  history. 

All  these  are  merely  objective.  They  appeal 
blindly  to  an  outer  Church.  They  do  not  take  into 
account  that,  as  matters  of  fact,  the  corporate 
Church  of  the  West  never  formally  fixed  the 
Canon  till  the  sixteenth  century,  and  that  of  the 


Lect.  VI.]  SUBJECTIVE  GROUNDS.  213 

East  did    not  follow  its   example  till    a   hundred 
years  afterwards. 

II.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  our  reasons  are  not 
wholly  subjective. 

(1.)  We  cannot  agree  with  the  first  Heformers, 
who  took  no  account  of  the  general  voice  of  Chris- 
tendom, and  acted  as  though  each  solitary  man 
were  brouofht  to  weio^h  the  claims  of  a  new  book. 
Luther,  and  those  who  agreed  with  him,  debarred 
the  individual  from  taking  into  consideration  the 
historical  testimony  of  Christ's  people  and  the 
contemporary  personal  testimonies  of  all  awakened 
men,  and  thus  magnified  the  Christian  to  the 
exclusion  of  Christendom.  The  living  Church, 
which  was  founded  upon  and  built  up  in  Jesus 
Christ,  ceased  to  have  any  evidence  in  its  origin 
or  in  its  history  for  the  books  of  Scripture. 

(2.)  We  cannot  agree  with  Coleridge  that  only 
in  so  far  as  there  is  in  the  Bible  what  '  finds  him ' 
is  it  God's  word  for  him.  For  is  there  no  rightful 
authority  in  the  Bible  if  a  man  be  so  lost  or  so  dull 
that  he  does  not  feel  it  ?  Or  may  a  man  refuse 
to  admit  that  there  is  any  evidence  for  the  word 
of  God  being  found  in  those  parts  which  do  not 
find  him'f     This  seems  to  be  Coleridge's  position.^ 

^  See  Coleridge's  Confessions  of  an  Inquiring  Spirit,  Letters  i.  and  ii. 
This  touching,  beautiful,  and  suggestive  work  receives  great  injustice 
when  it  is  supposed  to  be  a  plagiarism  from  Lessing.  The  German  was 
the  advocate  of  intellect ;  Coleridge  was  a  devout,  '  inquiring  spirit.'    His 


214  RECOGNITION  OF  AUTHORITY.  [Lect.  vi. 

The  Bible  is  to  be  simply  tried  by  a  subjective 
test. 

A  similar  objection  applies  to  the  kindred  view  held 
by  many,  and  by  none  more  beautifully  expressed 
than  by  the  late  eminent  historian  Dean  Milman. 
It  is  to  the  effect  that  while  humanity  retains  its 
needs  and  cravings,  it  must  have  the  religion  of  the 
Bible  ;  and — though  that  was  not  the  aim  of  the 
great  historian — the  result  is  to  •  leave  us  in  doubt 
whether  man  did  not  invent  the  religion  which  he 
thus  needs/ 

argument  seems  to  me  to  be  defective  ;  bu,t  no  theory  of  the  authority  of 
Scripture  can  be  adequate  which  does  not  embrace  the  powerful  argument 
suggested  by  Coleridge  in  many  wonderfully  beautiful  passages  in  those 
Confessions.  I  quote  two  :  '  And  need  I  say  that  I  have  met  everywhere 
more  or  less  copious  sources  of  truth,  and  power,  and  purifying  im- 
pulses ;  that  I  have  found  words  for  my  inmost  thoughts,  songs  for  my 
joy,  utterances  for  my  hidden  griefs,  and  pleadings  for  my  shame  and 
my  feebleness '  (Letter  i.).  '  But  let  me  once  be  persuaded  that  .  .  . 
the  royal  harper,  to  whom  I  have  so  often  submitted  myself  as  a  many- 
stringed  instrument  for  his  fire-tipt  fingers  to  traverse,  while  every 
several  nerve  of  emotion,  passion,  thought,  that  thrids  the  flesh  and 
blood  of  our  common  humanity,  responded  to  the  touch,  was  himself  as 
mere  an  instrument  as  his  harp,  an  automaton  poet,  mourner,  and 
supplicant; — all  is  gone, — all  sympathy,  at  least,  and  all  example. 
I  Hsten  in  awe  and  fear,  but  likewise  in  perplexity  and  confusion  of 
spirit'  (Letter  iii.).  Coleridge  was  endeavouring  to  overturn  the 
mechanical  theory  of  inspiration,  according  to  which  (apparently)  the 
humanity  of  the  inspired  man  was  paralyzed  for  the  time  being.  But 
his  reaction  is  too  complete  when  his  own  theory  is  merely  this :  '  In 
short,  whatever /nr/s  me,  bears  witness  for  itself  that  it  has  proceeded 
from  a  Holy  Spirit '  (Letter  i.).  For  though  this  is  excellent,  it  cannot 
be  all. 

1  '  For  the  perpetuity  of  religion,  of  the  true  religion,  that  of  Christ,  I 
have  no  misgivings.  So  long  as  there  are  women  and  sorrow  in  this 
mortal  world,  so  long  will  there  be  the  religion  of  the  emotions,  the  reli- 
gion of  the  affections.  Sorrow  will  have  consolations  which  it  can  only 
fijid  in  the  gospel.  So  long  as  there  is  a  sense  of  goodness,  the  sense  of 
the  misery  and  degradation  of  evil,  there  will  be  the  religion  of  what  we 


Lect.  VI.]  JAMES  MARTINEAU.  215 

Every   theory   which   begins    in    the    denial    of 
authority  to   the  Bible  as   being   God's   word,    is 
logically  bound  to  end  in  setting  the  intuitions  of 
man  above  what  we  believe  to  be  the  written  reve- 
lation.    Not  the   intuitions   of  the    renewed   man 
only,  as  Luther  would  have  it,  but  the  intuitions  of 
man.     I  regret  to  find  the  most  striking  instance 
of  this  in  the  case  of  a  man  now  venerable  in  years, 
as  he  has  long  been  conspicuous  for  gifts  of  intellect 
and  graces  of  style,  and  a  wonderful  sympathy  with 
the  upward  strivings  of  human  hearts.    In  an  address 
delivered  a  few  months  ago.  Dr.  James  Martineau, 
trying  to  estimate  the  '  Loss  and  Gain  in  Recent 
Theology,'  casts  off  all  appearance  of  regard  for  the 
authority  of  Scripture.     He  says  :   '  Consider  first 
the   total  disappearance   from   our   branch  of  the 
Reformed  Churches   of  all   external   authority   in 
matters  of  religion.     The  conception   of  a  canoni- 
cal literature  that  shall  serve  as  a  divine  statute- 
may  call  the  moral  necessities  of  our  nature,  the  yearning  for  rescue  from 
sin,  for  reconciliation  with  an  All-Holy  God.     So  long  as  the  spiritual 
wants  of  our  higher  being  require  an  authoritative  answer,  so  long  as  the 
human  mind  cannot  but  conceive  its  imaginative,  discursive,  creative, 
inventive  thought  to  be  something  more  than  a  mere  faculty  or  innate 
or  acquired  power  of  the  material  body  ;  so  long  as  there  are  aspirations 
towards  immortality,  so  long  as  man  has  a  conscious  soul,  and  feels  that 
soul  to  be  his  real  self — his  imperishable  self, — so  long  will  there  be  the 
religion  of  reason.     As  it  was  the  moral  and  religious  superiority  of 
Christianity,  in  other  words,  the  love  of  God  diffused  by  Christ,  "by 
God  in  Christ,''  which  mainly  subdued  and  won  the  world,  so  that  same 
power  will  retain  it  in  willing  and  perpetual  subjection.     The  strength 
of  Christianity  will  rest  not  in  the  exalted  imagination,  but  in  the  heart, 
the  conscience,  the  understanding  of  man.' — Milman,  History  of  Christi- 
anity^ Preface,  p.  xxii. 


216  RECOGNITION  OF  AUTHOlilTY.         [Lect.  vi. 

book  belongs  to  a  stage  of  culture  that  has  passed 
away.'  *  The  perennial  fountains  of  religion  lie  in 
the  deepest  wells  of  our  nature,  in  the  primary 
essence  of  the  reason  and  the  moral  conscious- 
ness.' 

And  again  he  sums  up  thus  :  ^  The  Bible  neither 
is  nor  professes  to  be  a  creed  and  code  ;  we  have 
therefore  no  authoritative  text-book  of  divine  truth 
and  human  duty,  so  we  must  open  our  minds 
to  all  that  speaks  divinely  to  them,  whether  in  the 
Bible  or  elsewhere.' 

It  may  be  a  comfort  to  him  to  be  '  delivered  to 
the  intuitions  and  pieties  of  our  nature/  but  most  of 
us  are  thankful,  as  David  said,  that  there  is  a 
revealed  law  of  the  Lord  wdiich  'converteth  the 
soul,  and  maketh  wise  the  simple.'  Most  of  us  are 
thankful  to  have  been  taught  the  prayer,  ^Sanctify 
us  through  the  truth  :  Thy  word  is  truth.'  The 
aged  Unitarian  minister  has  long  been  to  many — as 
Channing  was — a  proof  that  a  man  may  be  better 
than  his  creed,  a  proof  that  a  man  may  love  the 
word,  and  even  the  Word  made  flesh,  though  his 
creed  be  cold  and  comfortless  Socinianism ;  but  he 
now  demands  to  be  regarded  as  the  head  of  a 
number  of  moralists  proclaiming  '  the  disappearance 
from  their  faith  of  the  entire  Messianic  mythology^ 
Let  us  hope  that  few  of  those  who,  in  their 
'  Endeavours  after  the  Christian  Life,'  have  had 
him  for  their  guide,  will  follow  him  thus  far  ! 


Lect.  VI.]  J.  T.  BECK.  217 

III.  I  cannot  agree  with  another  theory  which 
goes  farther  than  the  Reformers  and  Coleridge, 
taking  other  living  men  into  account,  but  gives  little 
'Weight  to  the  argument  from  history.  The  best  state- 
ment of  this  position  is  found  in  the  writings  of  the 
late  Professor  Beck  of  Tubingen.  It  is  based  upon 
Calvin  and  Luther,  but  as  a  whole  is,  as  might  be 
expected,  independent.  It  is  interesting  as  con- 
taining the  core  of  the  teaching  which  for  so  many 
decades  attracted  the  largest  theological  class  in 
Germany,  and  in  Tubingen  itself  drew  crowds  of 
students  away  from  Baur.  It  is  to  the  effect  that, 
while  external  testimonies  are  all  very  well  in  their 
own  place,  they  inust  never  be  exalted  into  proofs 
of  the  Scriptures  containing  a  divine  revelation  ; 
for  that  the  Scripture  contains  in  itself  a  divinely 
working  spiritual  pow€r  which  is  its  own  best 
evidence.  When  the  Bible  was  given,  the  miracu- 
lous revelation  out  of  which  the  writings  came 
was  the  essential  element  in  the  spiritual  con- 
dition of  the  divine  kingdom  that  was  ruling 
men.  The  men  of  that  day  had  their  function  in 
connection  with  Scripture,  and  it  was  discharged. 
But  we  are  in  very  different  circumstances.  We 
have  not  to  begin  to  search  and  see  if  among  all  the 
books  in  the  world  there  be  any  which  are  Holy 
Scripture.  We  in  our  time  have  to  deal  with  the 
fact  that  we  are  in  the  middle  of  a  believing  com- 
munity, whose  belief  in  revelation  is   a   belief  in 


218  RECOGNITION  OF  AUTHORITY.  [Lect.  vi. 

certain  Scriptures  as  containing  that  revelation. 
To  us,  therefore,  the  question  is  whether  those 
Scriptures  verify  their  claim,  and  justify  their  place, 
by  producing  the  same  divine  spiritual  results  as 
they  undertake  to  produce.  Do  those  Scriptures 
justify  themselves  as  God's  word  to  man  ?  Are 
they  still  full  of  spirit  and  power  ?  That  they 
are,  all  spiritual  men  testify.  In.  all  ages  the 
Scripture  has  legitimized  itself  by  the  immanence 
of  a  life-giving  Spirit  ;  and  at  this  moment  the 
Scripture  is  always  the  producing  element,  while 
man  is  the  receptive  and  reproductive,  so  that  it 
was  not  only  God -breathed  when  first  written, 
but  even  now  God  breathes  through  the  Scripture 
while  man  reads  it,  and  the  Scripture  itself  breathes 
life.  It  follows  from  this  that  we  should  not  need 
to  distress  ourselves  if  apocryphal  books,  or  other 
candidates  for  a  place  as  ins2:)ired  writings,  were 
to  be  brought  forward,  because,  until  they  could 
show  for  themselves  that  they  produced  those 
spiritual  results,  they  need  not  occupy  attention. 
On  the  other  hand,  each  individual  book  of  Scrip- 
ture is  an  integral  part  of  the  organic  whole  of 
Scripture,  and  the  general  conscience  of  the 
spiritual  people  of  Christ  attests  that  it  is.  An 
individual  here  and  there  may  be  unable  to 
recognise  the  Spirit  of  God  in  a  book,  as  Luther 
was  for  long  when  dealing  with  the  Apocalypse 
and  the  Epistle  of  James,  but  the  great  community 


Lect.  VI.]  THE  TRUE  GROUNDS.  219 

of  the  members  of  Christ's  body  are  not  so  defec- 
tive in  spiritual  enlightenment  or  so  one-sided. 
What  the  exceptional  individual  does  not  recognise 
is  full  of  life  to  others,  and  thus  the  Spirit  which 
dwells  in  spiritual  people  as  a  whole,  attests  each 
and  every  book  of  the  New  Testament.^  Thus 
the  ultimate  test  of  the  canonicity  of  a  book  is 
not  a  mere  weicfhinof  of  historical  testimonies,  nor 
a  subjective  inner  witness  from  personal  feelings 
and  conception  of  the  truth,  because  no  mere 
mental  test  can  comprehend  the  Spirit  of  God, 
but  a  spiritual  criticism,  in  which  every  thought 
(ttuv  vc7]/ia)  is  brought  into  subjection  to  the  faith 
(2  Cor.  X.  5),  and  in  which  there  is  a  power  of 
spiritually  recognising  the  truth  in  God's  word, 
judging  Scripture  by  Scripture  in  the  very  spirit 
of  the  Scripture  itself.  Like  Calvin  and  Bengel, 
Professor  Beck  will  not  allow  the  judgments  of 
unregenerate  men  to  be  of  the  slightest  moment 
in  contributing  to  the  all-important  decision. 

In  this  noble  and  consistent  scheme,  which  was 
the  centre  of  the  life-thought  of  one  of  the  most 
potent  theologians  of  our  time,  there  seems  to  me 
to  be  this  defect,  that  it  takes  too  little  account 
of  history.  For  the  mass  of  Christian  people  it 
is  ample,  but  it  would  leave  to  the  enemy  the 
whole  field  of  historical  criticism.  It  was  a  needed 
reaction,  but  too  great  a  reaction  from   the  cold 

^  See  Beck,  Einleitung  in  das  System  der  cJirUlUchen  Lehre,  §§  82-101. 


220  RECOGNITION  OF  AUTHORITY.         [Lect.  vi. 

historical  survey  of  Baur.  If  we  can  correct  the 
individual  aberrations  of  Luther  by  the  general 
testimony  of  the  contemporary  people  of  God, 
why  should  we  shut  out  from  our  survey  the 
whole  general  testimony  of  the  bygone  ages  which 
are  embalmed  for  us  in  history  ? 

I Y.  Our  answer,  then,  is  partly  objective  and  partly 
subjective,  partly  present,  p)artly  historical.  There 
are  before  us  two  great  facts  which  Coleridge 
called  the  primary  evidences  of  Christianity,  viz. 
Christianity  itself  and  Christendom.  We  know 
nothing  like  them  ;  nothing  with  claims,  nothing 
with  achievements,  like  theirs.  We  find  that  they 
both  rest  on  this  Book  ;  both  find  their  verification 
in  it.  It  came  out  from  their  bosom  ;  they  return 
to  it  evermore  for  their  strength  and  warrant ; 
for  it  contains  the  truth  of  God,  out  of  which 
they  grew,  and  to  which,  as  contained  in  it,  they 
testified  when  it  appeared.  It  is  the  work  of  the 
men  whom  God  sent  forth  to  teach  all  nations, 
and  to  make  disciples  of  all  men  ;  and  its  truth 
is  still  as  great  and  living  as  when  they  spoke  it 
and  wrote  it. 

In  that  Book,  when  our  souls  are  opened  to 
receive  it,  we  find  a  revelation  of  God  which  all 
that  is  best  in  us  bows  before,  and  which  also 
the  demon-part  of  us  acknowledges  while  trying 
to  think  that  we  have  nothing  to  do  with  Jesus, 
the   Son  of  the   Most  High  God.     It  brings  life 


Lect.  VI.]  THE  TRUE  GROUNDS.  221 

and  immortality  to  light — a  light  which  is  brighter 
than  all  others,  as  the  blaze  which  smote  Paul 
to  the  ground  was  brighter  than  the  rays  of  the 
Syrian  sun  at  noon.  Above  all,  we  find  in  it  the 
Person  of  Jesus  Christ,  whom  we  need  no  outer 
proof  from  any  quarter  to  show  to  be  the  chief 
among  ten  thousand,  and  altogether  lovely.  The 
Person  of  Jesus  Christ  is  Divine,  is  God  and  Man; 
and  eye  never  saw,  ear  never  heard,  the  heart  of 
man  never  conceived.,,  a  life  like  that,  until  ONE 
actually  dwelt  among  men  and  lived  it.  Not  a 
dream,  nor  a  myth,  nor  a  fiction,  nor  exaggeration 
of  loving  discipleship^  is  this  to  me,  but  the  very 
truth  of  the  living  God,  the  Father  in  heaven. 
All  saints  that  have  lived  and  struggled  unto 
victory ;  all  martyrs  that  have  triumphed  in  their 
death  ;  all  poor  penitents  that  have  heard  the 
voice  of  hope,  and  therefore  climbed  the  eternal 
altar -stairs  that  slope  through  darkness  up  to 
God ;  all  sages  that  have  revered  Christ's  greater 
wisdom  ;  the  Church,  whose  one  foundation  is 
Jesus  Christ,  her  Lord,  —  all  bring  us  evidence 
that  the  Bible,  which  is  the  Book  of  Jesus  Christ, 
is  the  very  word  of  God. 

We  have  learned  in  our  ow^n  life  that  wdien 
we  ceased  to  take  our  daily  portion  from  its 
boundless  stores,  w^e  became  weak  and  fell ;  that 
all  our  worst  days  have  come  of  neglect  of 
prayerful  study  of  that  word  for  ourselves  ;    that 


222  RECOGNITION  OF  AUTHORITY.  [Lect.  vi. 

our  corruption  always  rises  when  we  cease  to  look 
on  the  Divine  Ideal,  and  so  to  learn  how  unfathom- 
ably  deep  and  disgraceful  that  corruption  is.  And 
what  we  have  found  in  ourselves,  we  have  seen  in 
others.  We  have  seen  God's  word  vindicated  in 
many  a  life  sanctified  by  its  truth.  AVe  have  seen 
passion  quenched,  degradation  recalled,  despair 
dispelled,  death  himself  subjugated,  by  a  simple 
faith  taught  of  God. 

My  friends,  the  vision  is  shut  up  and  the 
Book  is  sealed.  No  hope  has  been  given  us  that 
the  seals  will  be  broken,  or  a  new  page  added. 
Hebrew  seers  knew  that  a  day  of  fuller  light 
would  come,  and  they  were  on  tiptoe  for  the 
coming  of  the  Prophet,  the  Priest,  and  the  King. 
But  now  that  He  has  come,  what  more  can  be 
done  unto  the  vineyard  ?  It  was  the  Lord  of 
the  vineyard's  last  means  :   '  I  will  send  my  Son.' 

But  the  closed  Book  is  a  living  word.  Still 
as  mighty  to  us  as  to  those  of  old  time  is  the 
'  dignity  of  a  saying  fresh  -  descended  from  the 
porch  of  heaven.'  It  will  write  its  witness  in  your 
hearts  and  lives  if  ye  be  true  men  ;  if  your  eye 
is  single,  its  light  will  fill  your  body  ;  if  your 
heart  is  pure,  you  will  see  God  in  this  Book. 
You  will  see  it  in  the  lives  and  deaths  of  other 
men.  It  is  the  unfolding  and  revelation  of  God's 
nature,  and  therefore  of  all  the  principles  of  life. 
It  is  the  key  to  history,  the  bond  of  society,  as 


Lect.  VI.]  THE  TRUE  GROUNDS.  223 

well  as  the  guide-book  of  the  perplexed  and  the 
hope  of  the  fallen.  It  gives  the  basis  of  morals 
in  the  living  relation  of  man  to  the  Supreme 
Father,  who  is  of  His  own  nature  holy.  And 
thus  comes  the  supreme  authority  of  the  Scrip- 
tures :  '  They  are  they  which  testify  of  ME.' 


DRS.  DIESTEL  AND  ROBERTSON  SMITH  ON 
IREN^US  AND  THE  RULE  OF  FAITH. 

DiESTEL,  ill  his  GescJiichte  des  Alien  Testaments  in  der  christlichen 
Kirche  (1869),  speaks  of  the  difficulty  felt  by  the  fathers  in  find- 
ing something  fixed  to  serve  as  a  rule  when  allegorical  interpreta- 
tions were  making  the  meaning  of  Scripture  vague  and  shadowy. 
Allegory  was  a  two-edged  sword,  opening  a  door  to  heresy  on  the 
one  hand,  while  closiug  it  on  the  other.  '  And  so,'  says  Diestel, 
'  one  had  to  grip  as  a  master-key  that  apostolical  tradition  in  which 
he  saw  the  universal  Christian  spirit  in  its  full  purity '  (p.  38).  In 
this,  as  in  much  else,  the  testimony  of  Irenseus  is  of  primary 
importance,  inasmuch  as  he  is  the  author  of  the  earliest  extant 
systematic  treatise  on  Christian  theology.  Diestel  accordingly, 
after  saying  that  he  who  sought  the  master-key  of  apostolical  tradi- 
tion sought  it  in  the  '  Rule  of  Faith '  which  was  found  in  the  sub- 
stance of  the  Exposition  of  the  Church,  goes  on  :  '  Irenaeus  (iv.  25 
(26),  2)  refers  directly  to  the  presbyters  "who  (he  says),  along  with 
the  succession  of  the  Episcopate,  received  the  sure  charisma  of 
truth  according  to  the  good  pleasure  of  the  fathers.  .  .  .  For 
they  expound  the  Scriptures  without  danger  to  us,  neither  blas- 
pheming God,  nor  dishonouring  the  patriarchs,  nor  contemning 
the  prophets."  ...  To  Irenaeus,  therefore,  the  Scripture  is  the 
treasure  hid  in  the  field  {Adv.  Beer.  iv.  25,  26) ;  the  laity  may  read 
it  under  the  guidance  of  the  presbyters  (iv.  32).' 

It  is  scarcely  possible,  in  short  compass,  to  show  fully  how 
partial,  and  therefore  misleading,  this  professed  outline  of  the  views 
of  Irenaeus  is.  But  First.,  Irenaeus  does  not  say  that  Scripture  is 
the  treasure  hid  in  the  field ;  what  he  does  say,  is  that  Christ  is 
the  treasure  once  hid  in  the  field ;  that  the  treasure  was  revealed 
when  Christ  came;  that  the  Jewish  law,  when  read  in  the  light  of 
His  cross,  becomes  a  treasure  enriching  the  understanding,  so  that 
men  of  understanding  shine  as  the  brightness  of  the  firmament 
(Dan.  xii.  3).  Second^  Irenaeus  does  not  mean  to  say  (as  Diestel 
insinuates)  that  Scripture  can  only  be  read  under  presbyterial 
supervision.  What  he  says  is  that  many  men,  professing  to  be 
guides, — '  and  beheved  by  many  to  be  presbyters,' — are  '  men  who 
serve  their  own  lusts,'  and  '  do  not  set  the  fear  of  God  supreme  in 


NOTE  ON  IREN^US.  22o 

their  own  hearts  ; '  that  such  men  are  the  evil  servants  whom  the 
Lord  when  He  cometh  shall  cut  in  sunder  and  appoint  them  a 
portion  with  the  unbelievers  (Matt.  xxiv.  48).  He  therefore  ex- 
horts his  readers  to  adhere  to  those  who  are  the  '  guardians  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  apostles,'  and  who  have  those  two  qualifications^  viz. 
the  order  of  the  presbyterate,  and  along  with  it,  a  sound  and  blame- 
less hfe.  Irenoeus  is  expanding  the  statements  and  warnings  of  Paul 
to  Timothy  and  Titus.  He  is  proclaiming  the  principle  by  which 
Clement  and  Origen  so  strongly  held,  and  which  the  Reformers 
afterwards  made  their  own,  that  no  man  can  be  a  competent  ex- 
positor of  the  word  of  God  who  has  not  the  grace  of  God  in  his 
heart  ruling  the  life.  It  is  not  enough  to  be  a  presbyter;  the 
teacher  must  also  be  a  man  of  God.  The  very  sentence  of  which 
Diestel  quotes  a  part — as  though  it  were  (hke  the  first  words) 
from  §  2  of  Irenasus,  iv.  c.  '2Q  (whereas  it  is  from  §  5) — is  a  dis- 
proof of  his  allegation,  and  proves  what  we  have  said.  We  give 
it  in  full,  translating  also  the  sentence  immediately  preceding  it : 
'  Where,  therefore,  the  charismata  of  God  are,  there  ought  the  truth 
to  be  learned,  among  the  men  who  have  the  succession  of  the 
church  which  is  from  the  apostles,  and  in  whom  is  a  sound  and 
blameless  conversation  with  untainted  and  incorruptible  speech. 
For  those  men  both  guard  our  faith  towards  one  God,  the 
Maker  of  all ;  and  also  augment  our  love  towards  the  Son  of  God, 
who  accomplished  such  mighty  plans  for  our  sakes  ;  they  expound 
the  Scriptures  without  danger  to  us,  neither  blaspheming  God,  nor 
dishonouring  the  patriarchs,  nor  contemning  the  prophets.'  The 
mere  '  succession '  is  not  all ;  there  must  be  also  the  qualification  of 
special  inner  grace,  by  which  the  teachers  increase  the  faith  and 
the  love  of  their  disciples.  The  passage  (iv.  32)  to  which  Diestel 
further  refers,  as  though  it  were  a  Papal  prohibition  of  Bible- 
reading,  is  a  further  warning  against  the  people  trusting  to 
teachers  who  (as  being  really,  though  not  avowedly,  Gnostics) 
attempted  to  show  that  the  '  Two  Testaments '  are  in  antagonism, 
and  he  tells  them  that  they  'will  find  it  all  clear  if  they  will 
diligently  read  the  Scriptures  in  company  with  those  who  are 
presbyters  in  the  Church,  and  who  have  the  apostolic  doctrine^ 
according  to  the  principles  we  have  laid  down.' 

The  evil  of  such  general  statements  as  those  of  Diestel  is  still 
better  seen  when  they  are  made  more  sweeping,  as  they  are  by 
his  followers,  who  trust  to  his  induction  of  facts.  Dr.  Robertson 
Smith,  in  his  Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish  Church,  has  the  following 
remarks :  '  In  the  absence  of  a  satisfactory  and  scientific  interpre- 


226  NOTE  ON  IREXiEUS. 

tation,  tlie  conflict  of  opinions  between  the  orthodox  and  the 
heretics  was  decided  on  another  principle  than  that  of  exegesis. 
The  apostles,  it  was  said,  had  received  the  mysteries  of  divine 
truth  from  our  Lord,  and  had  committed  them  in  plain  and  living 
words  to  the  apostolic  churches.  That  is  a  point  to  which  the 
ancient  fathers  always  recurred.  The  written  ivord^  they  say^  is 
necessarily  ambiguous  and  difficulty  hut  the  spoken  ivord  of  the  apostles 
teas  clear  and  transparent.  In  the  apostolic  churches,  then,  the 
sum  of  true  doctrine  has  been  handed  down  in  an  accurate  form ; 
and  the  consent  of  the  apostoHc  churches  as  to  the  mysteries  of 
faith  forms  the  rule  of  sound  exegesis.  Any  interpretation  of 
Scripture,  say  the  fathers,  is  necessarily  false  if  it  differs  from  the 
ecclesiastical  canon — that  was  the  technical  term  which  they  used — 
if  it  differs,  that  is,  from  the  received  doctrinal  testimony  of  the 
great  apostolic  churches,  such  as  Corinth,  Rome,  and  Alex- 
andria, in  which  the  word  of  the  apostles  was  still  held  to  live, 
handed  down  by  oral  tradition '  (p.  35). 

The  sentence  which  we  have  put  in  italics  is  somewhat  modified 
by  that  which  follows ;  but  its  sweeping  assertion  is  not  thereby 
made  innocuous.  Several  of  the  other  sentences  give  an  account 
of  the  case  which  is  open  to  objection  as  partial,  and  therefore 
inaccurate ;  but  they  are  vague.  This  one  is  so  definite  that  it 
can  be  tested.  We  look  to  the  author  for  his  proof.  The  only 
proof  given  by  Dr.  Smith  is  in  a  note  at  the  end  of  his  volume 
(p.  390),  where  he  says : 

'  On  the  Regula  Fidei,  and  its  connection  with  the  ambiguity  of  the 
allegorical  interpretation,  so  keenly  felt  in  controversy  with  the  heretics, 
compare  Diestel,  Geschlchte  des  Alten  Testaments  in  der  christlichen  Kirche, 
\K  38  (Irenaius,  Tertullian),  p.  85  (Augustine).' 

We  have  already  seen  that  Diestel  misrepresents  Irenseus  ;  and 
in  so  far  as  Irenaeus  is  concerned,  Dr.  Smith's  statement,  which 
seems  to  rely  on  Diestel,  lacks  foundation.  Want  of  space 
prevents  an  examination  here  of  the  allegation  as  regards  Ter- 
tulhan  and  Augustine.  I  believe  that  they — and  even  Origen — 
are  not  fairly  liable  to  the  charge  conveyed  in  Dr.  Smith's  state- 
ment. But  the  question  of  the  supreme  position  of  Scripture  in 
the  last  quarter  of  the  century  is  most  materially  affected  by  what 
we  learn  from  Irenceus.  And  the  allegation  that  Irenseus  put  any 
mystical  or  traditional  exegesis  whatever  above  the  plain  sense  of 
Scripture,  I  believe  to  be  contrary  to  fact.  The  true  state  of  the 
case  I  believe  to  be,  that  Irenseus  put  his  faith  in  the  written  word 
(the  Scriptures),  and  appealed  confidently  and  incessantly  to  this 


NOTE  ON  IRENiEUS.  227 

as  against  the  heretics.  But  when  they  appealed  (as  the  necessi- 
ties of  their  position  compelled  them  to  appeal)  to  tradition,  he 
upheld  the  superiority  of  the  tradition  in  the  Church  to  anything 
of  the  sort  which  they  could  claim  in  their  circles.  The  following 
positions  are  easily  established  in  his  words  : — 

1.  Our  Lord  made  the  apostles  the  medium  of  revelation. 
Book  iii.  Introduction. 

2.  The  apostles  gave  the  Scriptures  as  the  pillar  and  ground  of 
the  faith.     Book  iii.  1,  §  1. 

3.  When  heretics  are  convicted  from  Scripture,  they  take  refuge 
in  tradition,  and  speak  against  Scripture  as  obscure.   Book  iii.  2,  §  1. 

4.  When  we  follow  their  lead  and  turn  to  tradition,  they  disown 
the  tradition  found  in  the  Church.     Book  iii.  2,  §  2. 

5.  But  if  apostles  had  known  any  recondite  mysteries,  which 
they  taught  to  a  favoured  few,  those  mysteries  would  have  been 
revealed  to  the  churches  which  they  founded,  and  not  to  the 
Gnostics.  We  turn,  therefore,  to  those  churches  to  see.  Book 
iii.  3,  §  1. 

6.  But  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  apostles  had  no  esoteric  or  secret 
doctrine:  what  they  learned  from  the  Lord,  they  taught  to  all. 
Book  iii.  14,  §  2. 

7.  The  heretics,  in  their  claim  to  have  the  true  tradition, 
perverted  Scripture :  what  they  taught  had  not  the  sanction  of  the 
Lord,  the  prophets,  and  the  apostles,  in  the  written  word.  Book 
i.  3,§6;  i.  8,  §1;  i.  9,  §  1,  etc. 

8.  The  heritage  of  the  Church  is  to  keep,  to  guard,  and  to 
proclaim  the  truth  committed  to  her  to  be  preached  (i.  10,  §  2); 
and  the  highest  aim  of  human  faculties,  and  their  highest  attain- 
ment, is  to  know  and  expound  the  great  truth  of  the  revelation  in 
the  Scripture  (i.  10,  §  3). 

9.  In  short,  the  Rule  of  Truth  is  what  the  Scripture  says:  and 
holding  it,  we  can  convict  all  those  who  err,  manifold  though  their 
errors  be  (i.  22,  §  1). 

The  word  tradition  (jrapaZocri^^  traditio)  is  used  in  the  fathers 
as  equivalent  to  '  that  which  is  committed  to  one's  trust,'  whether 
orally  or  in  writing.  The  same  ambiguity,  because  the  same 
fulness  of  meaning,  is  found  in  St.  Paul's  use  of  the  word :  '  So, 
then,  brethren,  stand  fast,  and  hold  the  traditions  which  ye  were 
taught,  whether  by  word  or  by  epistle  of  ours'  (2  Thess.  ii.  15). 
But  to  say  that  Irenaeus  put  an  oral  tradition  as  the  standard  of 
exegesis  over  a  plain  exposition  of  the  written  word,  is  quite 
another  thing,  and  is  inaccurate  or  misleading. 


MORRISON  AND  GIBB,   EDINBURGH, 
PRINTERS  TO   HER  MAJESTY'S  STATIONERY  OFFICE. 


